DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No.: 19/01416/B Applicant: Mr Madhusudan Malikireddy & Mrs Meena Aduma Proposal: Alterations, erection of a first floor extension, erection of a two storey extension, relocation of existing conservatory and extension of decking Site Address: 4 Park Close Glen Vine Isle Of Man IM4 4HB Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 22.01.2020 Site Visit: 22.01.2020 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 21.02.2020 _________________________________________________________________

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.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

The proposed extension located to the side and rear of the dwelling, which are already well screened from public views, would have minimal visual impact as viewed by the public and would have no significant impacts upon public or private amenities. These are considered acceptable and therefore comply with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the relevant sections of the Residential Design Guide.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to drawing nos. 19/0409/01, 19/0405/02 and 19/0405/03 received on 20th December 2019 and Bat Survey Report received on 21st February 2020.

_______________________________________________________________ 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): the owner/occupier of 15 Park Close the owner/occupier of 12 Glen Vine Park the owner/occupier of 11 Glen Vine Park the owner/occupier of Whintell, 13 Glen Vine Park the owner/occupier of 3 Park Close

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 APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS 5 REPRESENTATIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

THE SITE

1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing, detached dwelling situated within the cul de sac of Park Close, a continuation of Glen Vine Park. The dwelling sits on the lower side of the estate road and is a two storey dwelling with integral garage and a hipped roof. The external finishes are smooth, painted render below a brown tiled roof. - 1.2 The house has a single storey annex on the south eastern elevation closest to number 3 which is also a two storey dwelling but with gable ends and an attached garage closest to the boundary with the application site. - 1.3 The property currently has a conservatory on the rear which leads out onto a decked area.

THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Proposed is the upward extension of the single storey side elevation to bring it up to the height of the main ridge and eaves and a rearward extension whose roof will be at the same level as the main house. - 2.2 The side extension will accommodate two en-suite bathrooms and a wardrobe. There will be windows in each elevation; two serving bathrooms with one looking towards the side of number 3 which will have obscured glazing, and a window on the front elevation which will serve a closet (wardrobe). - 2.3 The rear extension will project 2.9m from the existing rear elevation and will have a 3m wide expanse of patio doors leading into the relocated conservatory, and horizontally proportioned window at ground floor level and four windows in the first floor. There are currently five windows in the rear elevation at first floor level - all serving bedrooms, two very slender ones. The new windows will be larger than the smallest windows currently in this elevation. - 2.4 An existing area of decking is to be extended to accommodate an additional small area in front of the new extension and the conservatory is to be relocated onto the front of the new extension. - 2.5 The extension will be 15m to the rear boundary of the property to the rear (12, Glen Vine Park and 28m to the closest part of that property. The neighbouring dwelling at number 13 is slightly closer at 23.5m to its closest point.

2.6 No supporting information has been submitted.

PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Predominantly Residential. As such, the following parts of the Strategic Plan are relevant:

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:

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

"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."

3.2 The Department has recently published the Residential Design Guidance (March 2019) which provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well

• as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property.

3.3 Section 4.3: Two Storey Rear Extension

• 4.3.1 These types of extensions have the potential to produce the greatest impact upon the amenities of those in neighbouring dwellings (see Chapter 7). There may be concerns if a proposal is to extend a semi-detached or terraced property along or close to the joint boundary. Extensions, which could have an adverse effect on the ground-floor living rooms or kitchens of neighbouring properties, are unlikely to be supported. However, problems may not arise if the neighbouring property already has a single-storey extension or outhouse on the boundary. In these cases, the Department is more likely to support proposals for a two-storey extension (if it keeps to all other aspects of this document). Each proposal should pay particular attention to poor outlook for and overlooking of the neighbouring property. As such, chapter 7 of the RDG 2019 would form a key component of the assessment of impacts on neighbouring dwellings. Other section vital to this assessment are the paragraphs within sections 4.4 of the guide.

3.4 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.

PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 There are a number of previous planning applications which are considered to be materially relevant in the assessment of the application, all of which have been approved (3 in total). 87/00518/B - Erection of four-bedroomed house and garage, Plot 4, Glen Vine Park Close, Marown 90/01193/B - Construction of conservatory, 4 Park Close, Glen Vine, Marown. 93/01424/B - Extension to create additional living accommodation, Leylandii, Park Close, Glen Vine, Marown.

All the works appear to have been carried out on sections of the building that would be altered by the current application.

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 'Do not oppose' in a letter dated 7 January 2020.

5.2 DEFA's Senior Biodiversity Officer has written in with the following comments in a letter dated 15 January 2020: We have several records of bats roosting in houses at Park Close. The proposed alterations may impact on a bat roost. The Ecosystem Policy Team recommends that an ecological

assessment for bats is undertaken prior to the determination of this application. Bat surveys should be undertaken in accordance with the Bat Conservation Trusts Bat Survey for Professional Ecologists - Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition 2016). Surveys are required to identify the species of bat utilising the property, their abundance and whether they are breeding and this will determine the mitigation required. Should bats be found then mitigation plan for their protection should be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the determination of the application. The presence of bats will not prevent the property from being altered but provision must be shown for the ongoing protection of the bats.

Bats are listed on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife Act 1990; they are protected by law and it is an offence to:

• o intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take a bat
• o intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy, or obstruct access to , any structure or place which bats use for shelter or protection
• o intentionally or recklessly disturbs any bat while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose. The maximum penalty that can be imposed is a fine up to 10,000 pounds.

• 5.2.1 In response to the request by DEFA's Senior Biodiversity Officer that a Bat Survey be carried out for the site, a Report was received on 7 February 2020:

Ecological Assessment and Conclusion The inspection revealed no evidence of previous or current occupation by bats. The building is soundly constructed and well-sealed which results in a lack of potential roosting features for the structure as a whole and a lack of access to the building by bats.

The ecological assessment resulting from this inspection, taken together with the results of the desk assessment, was that the building has low suitability as a potential bat roost location.

It is therefore my conclusion that the proposed alterations to the building will not materially impact the habitat for bats.

• 5.2.2 Having received the Bat Survey Report for the site, The Senior Biodiversity Officer has written in with the following comments in a letter dated 14 February 2020:

Further to my email of 15th January, we have reviewed the Bat Survey Report undertaken by the Manx Bat Group dated 5th February 2020. The Ecosystem Policy Team is satisfied that the proposed extension will have no impact on bats.

5.3 Marown Parish Commissioners have stated that they have no objection to the application in a letter dated 16 January 2020. - 5.4 The Owners/Occupiers of 15 Park Close, a neighbouring property to the northeast of the application site has written in to object to the proposal on 13 January 2020 with the following comments:

The building will be notably out of character with all other properties within Park Close. Building will be aesthetically unpleasant. It will fill the full length of the site looking like a slab sided office block. Building will impact on the value of other properties within Park Close.

Suggestion: Front elevation of the building should remain as that depicted in the North East elevation in the existing plans and elevations.

5.5 The Owners/Occupiers of 12 Glen Vine Park the abutting property to the rear object to the application on 16 January 2020 with the following comments:

• I object on the grounds it will impose on my privacy and it will devalue my property. No one will invest in my bungalow with a monstrosity of a house and sun lounge overlooking it.
• 5.6 The Owners/Occupiers of 11 Glen Vine Park the abutting property to the rear have written in to make the following comments regarding the application on 18 January 2020:

I write with regards to the above Planning Application, and the impact it will have on my home in Glen Vine Park.

4 Park Close overlooks my home and its elevated position and size means it is already a fairly imposing property when viewed from my rear garden. I have serious concerns that the proposed development will further increase this and make the property very overbearing when viewed from the lower properties in Glen Vine Park. The extension to the rear elevation of the property as outlined in the application will reduce the privacy in my rear garden and the patio area to the side of my home, and I worry that they will be able to see directly into the rooms at the rear of my property. I have attached a couple of photos to help demonstrate my concerns regarding loss of privacy. The first is taken from my back door; the second is from my patio area to the side of my home.

There is one tree in their garden which currently helps obstruct the view from their upper floor windows into my rear bedroom. There is no mention of any loss of trees in their planning application, but I would like to request the planning officer to make it a condition of any approval, should approval be granted to ensure that this tree is protected throughout the development, and retained afterwards. I would also suggest that the applicant consider installing some kind of hedging or tree line to the rear boundary fence to soften the impact on the lower properties in Glen Vine Park.

5.7 The Owners/Occupiers of Whintell, 13 Glen Vine Park the abutting property to the rear object to the application on 15 January 2020 with the following reasons:

• i. The elevated position of 4 Park Close already undermines privacy aspects to the rear of our properties with visual exposure to our rear bedrooms and gardens.
• ii. The proposed extensions being so significant will further undermine our remaining privacy as the building is brought closer to us and as mentioned, because of its elevated position, we will become even more overlooked and privacy to our bedrooms will be further compromised.
• iii. The proposed extension will make the property so imposing that it will undoubtedly impact the general desirability and saleable value of our individual properties in Glen Vine Park.
• iv. The present style and presentation of the building has no external aesthetic value to speak of and although we don't have details of the final build finish, we suspect that the proposed changes will not enhance its present appearance.

Finally, failing your acceptance of our objections, may we suggest that any approval given by you should be conditioned to include the erection of a suitable natural screening which must not be over-imposing, acceptable to the affected residents and supplied by and properly maintained at the applicants own expense.

5.8 The Owners/Occupiers of 3 Park Close, Glen Vine, the abutting property on the eastern boundary of the application site has written in to object to the application with the following comments in a letter dated 23 January 2020:

We wish to register our objection to the above mentioned planning application reference 19/01416/B, with relation to the Residential Design Guidance (RDG) published by the IOM Government in July 2019, on the following grounds;

The proposed changes to the property are NOT in keeping with the character & appearance of Park Close, in contravention of RDG item 3.3 & 4.4. All existing dwellings in the Close consist of a central structure with a single story attachment to the side i.e a garage or a reception room. There are currently no two-story structures in close proximity to adjoining dwellings. The existing property footprint extends to maximise the full width of the plot. The proposed first floor extension would therefore change the front view of the property to present an overwhelming and dominant presence both on the plot and in the cul-de-sac, resembling a block of flats rather than a detached house, thus having a significant Visual Impact Upon the Street Scene, with no respect to the proportion, design or form of the existing dwelling or neighbouring properties.

The proposed first floor side extension would become dominant over our kitchen & utility room areas, creating a significant loss of light and an overbearing influence to the west side aspect of our property, in contravention of RDG item 7.1.

The proposed rear extension would have a dominant impact upon the outlook and privacy of our garden, in contravention of RDG item 7.4. In view of the rear garden topography, the height of the pitched roof and the level of the first story windows at the rear extremity of the extension will significantly impact our level of comfort, enjoyment & outlook of our property/garden.

Further, we believe the plans submitted by the applicant are both inaccurate and misleading with regards to the Elevation descriptions noted. The front elevation of 4, Park Close actually faces North North West (and not North East as stated). The rear elevation of the property is South South East, which is significant with respect to the impact of the proposed extension on the privacy of our garden. The side elevation West South West is shown incorrectly on the plan as "South East Elevation" and the side elevation East North East is shown incorrectly on the plan as "North West".

We have enjoyed the consideration of our neighbours since building our home on this plot in 1984, with regards to the impact of any changes. We trust that these points raised in objection to the proposed plans will receive fair & reasonable consideration with respect to the principles of residential design & development.

ASSESSMENT

6.1 There is a presumption in favour of the development as set out in GP2 and paragraph 8.12.1 subject to the works not having any adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area or the living conditions of those in surrounding dwellings. As such, these are the issues in this case.

6.2 Character and appearance of the area and the application property

• 6.2.1 With regard to the first floor side extension, it is noted that the works will be visible from the street scene, albeit, only at an angle when entering the cul de sac, as the orientation of the dwelling and the nature of the existing boundary treatment which comprises a 3.5m hedge with some trees would screen views as visitors and residents exit the close. It is also noted that the street scene comprises a mix of building designs, styles and property sizes which makes the proposed change fit seamlessly into the existing street scene which is diverse in its current state.
• 6.2.2 Whilst the Owner/occupier of 3 Park Close has stated that 'all existing dwellings in the Close consist of a central structure with a single story attachment to the side i.e a garage or a

• reception room', it is noted that Nos 5, 8 (Balley Keeilley), 10, 14 and 21 are not designed to reflect this description; reinforcing the fact that the close consist of properties with varied designs, style and finishing; some of which reflect modern characteristics, with others bearing dated outlooks.
• 6.2.3 An issue that would have been a concern is the impact of the first floor extension on the street scene, as it brings the first floor of the application dwelling closer to 3 Park Close. However, the distance between the properties on the close is varied with the first floors of some of the properties considerably close to each other, particularly Nos 5 and 6 Park Close which are only 2.7m apart, Nos. 17 and 18 which are 3.4m apart and Nos. 13 and 24 which are

3.5m apart at the rear and 4.5m apart in front. Given that the distance between the application site and 3 Park Close is 3m, and would only consist of a first floor extension being built closer to a single storey section of the abutting dwelling, it is not considered that this would be an aberration within the street scene. As such, what is proposed will not have any adverse impact on the character or appearance of Park Close.

• 6.2.4 The proposed extension at the rear would be visible from the rear access lane, but would not appear unusual or out of keeping with the rear of the surrounding properties with abutting views to the rear access lane, given the extension is contained to the rear of the existing dwelling and given the amount of built development to either side of the site, which have significantly large rear elevations. Overall, any impact on the character and appearance of the area and the site itself would be minimal and in accordance with General Policy 2.
• 6.2.5 In terms of the impact upon this modern property, the proportion, form, scale, design and finish of the rear extension is such that the proposal would form an appropriate form of development. Accordingly, it is considered the proposal would not have significant impacts upon the amenities of the existing property to warrant a refusal.
• 6.2.6 Whilst it would have been more appropriate for the roof of the side extension to be set lower than the roof ridge of the main dwelling, the design of the property is such that dropping the roof ridge would result in the loss of symmetry and uniformity which the proposed change would bring to the front elevation, considering the design of the property is somewhat basic.

6.3 Impact on the living conditions of those in surrounding dwellings, notably 3, Park Close, 11, 12 and 13, Glen Vine Park

Impact on 3 Park Close

6.3.1 With regard to the possible impacts on 3 Park Close, it is noted that the key issue to consider is if there would be any impact of overshadowing or overbearing impact, since overlooking or loss of privacy cannot result from the proposed development, seeing the proposed window on the side elevation of the first floor side extension would be installed with obscure glazing.

• 6.2.2 The east-west movement of the sun means that, for both adjacent properties, any shadowing resulting from the extension would not be unacceptably above that already experienced on the side elevation of the abutting dwelling, particularly given the pitched roof proposed. Whilst it would bring the first floor closer to the application dwelling, the impact is not considered to be unduly exacerbated given the windows to be impacted are north facing and as such impacts on sunlight getting to these rooms would be limited. Similarly for overbearing impacts, the application property would still be 1m at the closest point(front elevation) and 1.8m at the rear; creating the required distance to avoid the overbearing impact or a terraced feel developing between both properties, thereby complying with paragraph 4.4.6 of the RDG 2019. Measurement and evaluation of the distance between the side elevations of the properties within the cul de sac has shown that the distance is noticeably

small (ranging from 2.6m to 4.1) and as such the distance of 2.9m between the application dwelling and 3 Park Close is considered to be acceptable.

• Impact on 11 Glen Vine Park

6.2.3 In relation to the potential impacts upon 11 Glen Vine Park, this neighbouring property is located to the south west of the site and the extension at its closest point would be 22.2m from the rear elevation of this property, diminishing any possibility for overlooking to occur. Moreover, the nature of the site boundary for the application dwelling, as well as the orientation of 11 Glen Vine Park when viewed from the application dwelling would limit views to its rear garden, thus limiting any privacy concerns that could result. During the site visit, it was noted that views to the rear garden from the habitable rooms on the rear elevation of the application dwelling will be considerably constrained by the orientation and boundary treatment on this property. Accordingly, given this modest rear projection, the design/height of the new extension, and existing boundary features, it is not considered that the proposal would significantly affect the amenities of the occupants of Nr 11 Glen Vine Park.

• Impact on 12 Glen Vine Park

• 6.2.4 In relation to 12 Glen Vine Park, four of the windows on the rear elevation which face this abutting dwelling will be brought closer to the rear windows by 2.8m. This will result in a distance of 28.2m between the proposed windows and the rear elevation of this application dwelling, a distance which is significantly greater than 20m; which is the minimum distance below which privacy concerns would result (Section 7.5 of the RDG 2019). Based on the foregoing, it is not considered that there would be any impacts on the privacy of the residents of 12 Glen Vine Park as a result of the proposed development. As well, the proposed rear extension would have its roof set 100mm lower than the existing roof ridge, making it a subordinate addition to the main dwelling, besides the fact that it would only have a depth of 2.8m and as such would not result in overbearing impacts on this abutting dwelling. Impacts on 13 Glen vine Park

6.3 With regard to the potential impacts upon the amenities of 13 Glen vine Park, it is noted that there wold be no views into the rear garden or any of the windows on the rear elevation of this dwelling from the application site. The nature of the boundary treatment of this property (the 3.5m hedging, as well as the projecting flat roof of its garage towards the rear garden would ensure that there are no views to the rear garden of this dwelling. It is also noted that the windows on the rear elevation of this dwelling would be 25.2m away, making overlooking an unlikely concern for the proposed development.

CONCLUSION

7.1 In summary, the proposal meets the requirements of the aforementioned policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and is acceptable.

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 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 : …Permitted……….... Committee Meeting Date:…02.03.2020 P VISIGAH 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.