Loading document...
Application No.: 20/00275/B Applicant: Mr Gary & Mrs Gail Corlett Proposal: Erection of a rear extension Site Address: Wayside 2 High View Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 5BQ Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken: 26.03.2020 Site Visit: 26.03.2020 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 12.05.2020 _________________________________________________________________
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.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. This application is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guidance.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to drawings no.C/1788/1 and C/1788/2 date-stamped as having been received on 6th March 2020. _______________________________________________________________
Additional Persons
None _____________________________________________________________________________
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Wayside 2 High View Road, Douglas, a two-storey semi-detached dwelling located at the north corner of the south end of High View Road in conjunction with Bray Hill. - 1.2 The existing extension at the rear of the property has a mono-pitched roof with red tiles matching that of the main dwelling. - 1.3 The site also contains a large raised backyard which varies from 1m to 2m above ground.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposed work is the erection of a single-storey extension on the rear elevation of the property. The work will be carried out fully within the boundary of the site. - 2.2 The proposed extension is going to have the following features:
2.3 The proposed work also involves the following:
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There is no previous application considered materially relevant to this application.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 In terms of local policy, the site lies within an area designated as Predominantly Residential Use in the Douglas Local Plan 1998. - 4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: - 4.3 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:
4.4 "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 an existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general."
4.5 Residential Design Guidance (July 2019) provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to an existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property. - 4.6 RDG 3.2 Potential Visual Impact of an Extension upon the Existing House states a pitched roof is preferred to a flat roof, especially when it's publicly visible. However, an exception can possibly be made when the existing property has a flat/low pitched roof design. - 4.7 RDG 4.2 Single Storey Rear Extension sets out some key considerations. These include the impact on the amenities of those in neighbouring properties such as loss of light and/or overbearing. These impacts can be regulated by designing with the right depth (projection) and location. The section also specifically mentioned that terraced/semi-detached dwellings have the potential for the greatest concern due to the potential of "tunnel effect". - 4.8 RDG 4.3.2 sets out a guide for determining the impact of a rear extension to the neighbouring property using the "45-degree approach". The paragraph then stresses that passing the test does not mean automatic approval or the reverse. Also, it points out that the approach could be unusable with certain orientations and changes in levels. - 4.9 RDG 5 sets out key considerations regarding architectural details. These include window details and external finishing. The general idea is that the extension should have a similar style with the main dwelling for a coherent appearance unless the clash between modern and traditional design can be handled with elegance. - 4.10 RDG 7 sets out key considerations regarding the impact on neighbouring properties. These include the potential loss of light/overshadowing, overbearing impact upon outlook and overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Douglas Borough Council has no objection on this application 24/03/2020). - 5.2 DoI Highway Services does not oppose this application (01/04/2020).
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The main concerns for this application are its impact on the character and appearance of the area and its impact on the amenities of the neighbours. - 6.2 The extension is at the rear of the property. However, it is visible from the adjacent Bray Hill. The extension is designed in a similar style as the main dwelling except for the flat roof. Although RDG states flat roof is generally an inappropriate design, the house already has an existing flat roof garage so the flat roof is a part of the existing design. In addition, there are many properties that have a flat roofs in garages/side extensions along Bray Hill so the design would not stand out in the street scene. Therefore, there is no adverse impact on the character or landscape of the area. - 6.3 The site along with the neighbouring property was built into a hill. Along with the fact the rear of both properties is facing north, this means the north elevation does not get much sunlight in the existing setting. The existence of raised back yard and high fences between the two properties worsen the situation. This combination means the "45-degree approach" can no longer be applied here as the existing outlook and sunlight exposure has already been limited by the existing environment. However, in the case of this one-storey extension, this means there is no additional impact of overshadowing that could happen when there is no raised back yard.
6.4 The extension is proposed to project approx. 5m from the rear elevation. In the Residential Design Guide, it is recommended that the projection of extension for a terraced and narrower semi-detached house should not exceed 3m. However, in this case, the existing high fence is about the same height as the top of the ground floor window. Therefore, the extension would not cause overbearing. For the same reason, there is no loss of privacy as well.
7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 The proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and Residential Design Guide Section 4, 5 and 7. Therefore, it is recommended for an 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:
8.2 The decision-maker must determine:
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: 03.07.2020 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 online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
