DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 20/00150/B Applicant: Mr Kevin & Mrs Lynne Erdbeer Proposal: Alterations and erection of side and rear extensions Site Address: 11 Harcroft Avenue Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 1PF Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 23.03.2020 _________________________________________________________________

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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. Prior to the occupation of the approved extensions, obscure glazing (Pilkington level 5 or equivalent) shall be installed in the proposed window in the eastern elevation of the ground floor living/dining room and in the proposed utility room window and shall be maintained as such thereafter. Reason: in the interests of neighbouring amenities.

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

Overall, it is considered the proposal would comply with the relevant policies of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan, no having any significant public or private amenities and therefore it is recommended that the application be approved.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to drawings 2001-102 REV A and 2001-101 REV A both received on 11th February 2020.

_______________________________________________________________

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 any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):

9 Harcroft Avenue, Douglas 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

1.0 SITE - 1.1 The application site represents the curtilage of an existing property 11 Harcroft Avenue, Douglas. The dwelling is a single storey detached dwelling, with gardens to the front and the rear of the property. The dwelling is located to the southern side of Harcroft Avenue. The property sits within an urban housing estate within Douglas.

2.0 PLANNING POLICIES - 2.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as being within a "predominantly residential use" under the Douglas Local Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area. - 2.2 General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan is considered applicable, which 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."

2.3 Residential Design Guide July 2019:

- "4.1 SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION

• 4.1.1 In relation to single storey extensions to the rear of the dwelling, generally the main issues relate to potential loss of light and/or overbearing impact upon the outlook of

neighbouring properties. Extensions to terraced or semi-detached properties can have the potential for the greatest concern. With either type of property the depth (i.e. rear projection) of an extension and the position (near the shared boundary) are key in ensuring any such extension does not impinge on the amenities of neighbouring properties."

- "4.2 EXTENSION TO SIDE ELEVATION

• 4.1.2 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).
• 4.1.3 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.
• 4.1.4 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."

- 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 There are no previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application. - 4.0 PROPOSAL

4.1 The application seeks approval for the alterations and erection of side and rear extensions, the latter replacing an existing conservatory. - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Douglas Borough Council do not object (05.04.03.2020).

5.2 Highway Services state there are no highway implications (28.02.2020). - 5.3 The owner/occupier of 9 Harcroft Avenue objects to the application which can be summarised as (09.03.2020); overlooking from rear decking resulting in a loss of privacy into our lounge/dining room and rear garden; and new side windows would overlook my kitchen bathroom and rear garden.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The key issues relate to the potential visual impact upon the street scene and potential impact upon neighbouring amenities.

6.2 The proposed rear and side extensions in terms of their design, proportion, siting and finish is appropriate and in keeping with the main dwelling house and would be an acceptable form of development. Accordingly, from these respects the proposals would comply with General Policy 2 and the Residential Design Guide. - 6.3 The neighbouring properties most likely to be affected would be Nrs 9 and 13 Harcroft Avenue which are to either side of the application site. In terms of the rear extension, it is not considered the proposal would have any significant impacts either through loss or light, overbearing impact upon outlook. In terms of overlooking there is an argument to be made

• that while the new rear extension would include a new single window within the eastern elevation and this has the potential to give raise to overlooking of Nr 9, it needs to be acknowledged that the amount of glazing facing towards Nr 9 is being reduced, given the existing conservatory is being demolished. However, in this case given that this new windows would serve a primary habitable room (i.e. living/dining room) compared to a conservatory which arguably has less use; the floor level differences of Nr 9 and the site (Nr 11 has views above boundary hedge downwards to Nr 9) and views from the new window would have direct views into the rear garden; it is considered appropriate that a condition should be attached to obscure glaze this window. Further, this windows would not be the main source of outlook or light to the new living/dining room and therefore it being obscure would not significantly affect the amenities of the occupants of the application dwelling.
• 6.4 In terms of the rear decking and overlooking towards Nr 9, these are of less concern. The very size and nature of the decking would limit its use. Factoring the bi-folding doors this again limits the amount of useable space of this decked area. It is considered a reasonable conclusion that this space would more likely just act as a link from the rear extension to the garden, rather than a useable outdoor space i.e. it is not capable due to its narrow depth of accommodating tables and chairs. If it where larger than the concerns of the neighbour of Nr 9 would be supported.
• 6.5 In theses consideration, it is noted that the boundary treatment that exists will further help reduce any potential impact, namely through overlooking.
• 6.6 The eastern extension to the side elevation is minor and does include a single window serving a utility room. This is opposite the gable of Nr 9 which has three windows. Obscure glazing should be installed through a condition. It is noted there are existing windows within the eastern elevation and there could be an argument that there is a neutral impact though overlooking from the new kitchen and utility windows. Accordingly, on this basis it is not considered the kitchen window proposed should be obscure glazed, as the impact is the same as the existing situation. Arguably, given the rear extension with larger window and being open plan, the main source of outlook and light for the kitchen area would be from the new large window to the rear (south), rather than the side window, which currently is the only source of outlook and light. However, in terms of the utility room it is considered this should be conditioned for obscure glazing, namely as the window is being brought closer to Nr 9, compared to the existing windows within the eastern elevation.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 Overall, it is considered the proposal would comply with the relevant policies of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan, no having any significant impact on public or private amenities subject to an appropriately worded condition in respect to obscure glazing to the new windows within the eastern elevation and therefore it is recommended that the application be approved. - 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 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: 01.04.2020 Determining officer

Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Principal Planner

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 onlineservices/customers and archive records.