DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 20/01142/B Applicant: Mr David Shillito Proposal: Alterations and extension to dwelling Site Address: 9 Mourne View Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1UJ Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 14.12.2020 _________________________________________________________________

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 first coming into use or occupation of the extension hereby approved the landscape planting as detailed in drawing number 19/2784/03 date stamped 02/10/2020 shall be planted. Should any of the new planting within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased they shall be replaced with the same planting during the next planting season and retained thereafter. Reason: to provide additional vegetation buffer along the boundary in the interest of amenity.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The application accords with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This application relates to drawing number 01/2784/01, 19/2784/02A and 19/2784/03 all date stamped and received 02/10/2020. _______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report SITE

1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 9 Mourne View, Peel, an existing dwelling located within a small cul-de-sac of 10 similar sized and styles properties located just west of the A4 Main Road heading out of Peel towards Kirk Michael. - 1.2 The geography of the estate is as such that the land slopes down towards the coast and Peel headlands. Number 9 sits nearest the top end of the cul-de-sac and is one of three dwellings clustered around the bend in the cul-de-sac road on the easternmost side. No's 7 and 8 Mourne View both sitting at levels below the application site. - 1.3 The application dwelling is orientated with its rear elevation facing north-west towards the rears of both the nearest neighbours and beyond towards Peel bay and Peel Castle. The front elevation including the integrated double garage fitted with two single garage doors faces south-east over the driveway and towards the estate road. - 1.4 The garden of the property wraps around the dwelling, directly to the rear there is an existing patio and an area of lawned garden built up to match the floor level of the house, beyond the existing patio the garden slopes steeply down towards the boundaries of both the neighbours. There is boundary vegetation which largely screens views of No 7 and its rear terrace from the existing bungalow and patio. - 1.5 The site has recently been subject to a refused planning application which sought approval for a number of alterations and extensions to the property including an extension to the north end gable to provide additional living accommodation installed with large areas of glazing across the rear elevation and also proposed a large extension to the rear patio. This application was refused at appeal, the Inspector concluded that the proposal by reason of the excessive loss of privacy on No, 7 Mourne View as a result of the extension and patio was unacceptable. PROPOSAL

2.1 The current planning application now seeks approval for the same alterations and extensions as previously proposed but has now omitted the rear patio extension and has also reduced the large rear glazing to two smaller windows measuring 2.4m wide and 1.4m tall. The proposal also now includes a landscaping scheme with additional planting proposed along the boundary with No. 7 Mourne View. - 2.2 The proposed extension is to have a hipped roof finish matching the main house and peaked gables across both the front and rear elevations, the extension at its largest point is to have a footprint of 10.5m x 12.5m providing living accommodation at ground floor and additional basement/garden storage underneath accessed via a garage door on the end gable. - 2.3 Other alterations included as part of this application are the replacement of the existing single garage doors with one larger double garage door and the infill between the garage and the front porch to create a utility and new front entrance, the installation of new patio doors in place of a window on the rear elevation.

PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 There have been three planning applications at the site since its original approval under 88/01082/B. PA 04/02385/B approved for the erection of conservatory on rear elevation; PA 96/00105/B approved for the enclosure of part porch to create a conservatory/porch and 19/01007/B refused at appeal for alterations and extensions to the main house.

3.2 Comments by the Inspector for the 2019 application have been summarised as follows: the single main issue was overlooking between No 9 and No 7 Mourne View and compared with the present situation, where relatively tall vegetation currently screens the view from the existing bungalow and terrace, the proposed extension and especially the proposed terrace extension would cause a wholly unacceptable degree of additional overlooking and loss of privacy to the rear of No 7 Mourne View. The application was refused on two grounds;

• o The proposed extension by reason of its elevated height and inclusion of large areas of glazing on the rear elevation would result in an unacceptable overlooking and privacy impact
• on the occupants of No. 7 Mourne View contrary to General Policy 2 (g) and the Residential Design Guide.
• o The proposed extension to the external terrace would result in an unacceptable
• overlooking and privacy impact on the occupants of No. 7 Mourne View contrary to General Policy 2 (g) and the Residential Design Guide.

3.3 The full Inspector's conclusion reads:

"29. This appeal revolves around the single main issue of overlooking between No 9 and No 7 Mourne View.

• 30. I recognise that the adopted RDG specifies a minimum window to window distance of 20m but note that it is merely guidance in support of clear policy to protect privacy and, in its terms, permits individual judgement to be made depending on circumstances, in particular when overlooking could be exacerbated by a difference in ground levels between neighbouring properties. I recognise too the good intention of the Appellant to protect the privacy of his neighbours, as well as his own, by improving boundary screen planting and his willingness to be bound to do so by planning condition.
• 31. However, on visiting both properties, I was struck by the degree to which the rear decking and bedroom windows of No 7 Mourne View would be openly visible to residents of No 9 within the proposed extension and especially from the extended terrace. That is compared with the present situation, where relatively tall vegetation screens the view from the present bungalow and terrace.
• 32. From what I saw of the other properties mentioned in the evidence, Nos 8 and 5, this effect would be significantly less marked at those dwellings, due largely to greater intervening distances or more oblique views.
• 33. I recognise that views between No 9 and No 7 are not entirely direct at 90 degrees and that a degree of mutual overlooking between the neighbouring dwellings of Mourne View is inevitable. However, properly assessed on individual merit, I consider that, without muchimproved boundary screening, the proposed development would cause a wholly unacceptable degree of additional overlooking and loss of privacy to the rear of No 7 Mourne View. Moreover, boundary planting cannot be regarded as a permanent barrier to a view.
• 34. The question thus arises as to whether this objection could be resolved by securing built or planted boundary screening by way of planning condition. For two reasons, I am persuaded that, within the scope of this appeal, it could not. First, I agree with the Planning Authority that it is not possible, on the available evidence, to judge whether such screening would indeed be effective, given the significant difference in ground levels. Second, any form of fence or barrier might be regarded as a material physical change to the proposed development that ought to be considered afresh by the Planning Authority via a new application.
• 35. I am satisfied from personal inspection and on the evidence available that the proposed development would be acceptable in all other respects of 6 design and appearance, including that it would not unacceptably harm the outlook from the upper floor of Caledonia, No 1

• Mourne View, due to the substantial intervening distance. In these respects the proposal accords with GP2(b) of the IMSP.
• 36. However, for the reason explained of excessive loss of privacy at the neighbouring property, No 7 Mourne View, which could not be satisfactorily resolved by planning condition, I conclude that the proposed development would be in unacceptable conflict with GP2(g) of the IMSP and that accordingly the appeal should be dismissed and the refusal upheld."

PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The property is situated within an area zoned as "Predominantly Residential" on the Peel Local Plan 1989. Due to the location of the site and the proposed works, we must consider the following relevant policies from The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in the assessment of the application along with 7.3 of the Residential Design Guide:

4.2 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;

• 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;"

4.3 Paragraph 8.12.1 states

"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."

4.4 Residential Design Guide OVERLOOKING RESULTING IN A LOSS OF PRIVACY

"7.5.1 The "20 metre guide" provides a useful way to identify where overlooking is likely to be a concern. It refers to the distance between elevations that contain windows serving habitable rooms that face each other - if this distance is over 20 metres, overlook is unlikely to be a concern. This distance can be relaxed where the design or orientation is such that privacy and amenity of a neighbouring property is not compromised. In dense urban areas where there is already a level of mutual overlooking a lesser standard may be acceptable. The required distance may need to be greater if there is a change in topography, which would result in an adverse effect on the privacy and amenity of a neighbouring property.

• 7.5.2 The presence of existing or proposed landscaping features (e.g. fences, walls and hedges) may help to mitigate overlooking at a ground floor level (depending on relative heights). Although the permanent retention of such landscaping cannot be guaranteed, it would be within the gift of both neighbours to retain/maintain/replace such landscape features."

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

5.1 Peel Commissioners - No comments received as of 14/12/2020

5.2 The Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - No highways interest (23/10/2020).

ASSESSMENT

6.1 The key matter to consider in the case of the current application remains the main issue of overlooking between No 9 and No 7 Mourne View.

6.2 It has already been recognised that there is an inevitable degree of mutual overlooking between the neighbouring dwellings of Mourne View including between No. 9 and No. 7 although orientation of both and existing vegetation helps to minimise its intensity.

6.3 The proposal now omits the previously unacceptable patio extension and the large areas of glazing have been replaced by two smaller windows, additional soft landscaping and vegetation is also to be planted along the boundary edge with No. 7 Mourne View. In taking into account the changes now proposed and the distances and angles between the rear elevation windows of both properties, the proposal is not considered to result in such an excessive level of overlooking or privacy impacts as to significantly adversely impact the living conditions of the neighbours to warrant a refusal. In addition to this it is expected that the proposed screen planting along the boundary will further help towards softening and limiting overlooking once its matured. - 6.4 It is acknowledged that there will be a change to the general outlook from the rear of No. 7 due to the size of the proposed extension on the end gable and its elevated position above No. 7 however given that both dwellings bound with open fields to the east it is not considered that this will result in any harm to their living conditions. - 6.5 As has been the conclusion in previous applications and by the previous Inspector the proposed works relating to the replacement garage door, rear replacement patio door and the infill extension on the front elevation are considered to be in keeping, acceptable and not to result in any adverse visual impacts on the existing dwelling or to result in any adverse amenity impacts on the neighbours.

CONCLUSION

7.1 Given the changes now proposed compared with the previous refusal of 19/01007/B the current application is considered to resent an acceptable level of development that complies with GP 2 (b, c, g, h, and i) of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.

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 and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : Permitted Date: 15.12.2020 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.