DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 19/00792/B Applicant: Mrs Rachel Hutchinson Proposal: Alteration and extension to rear of property Site Address: 22 Birchleigh Close Onchan Isle of Man IM3 4EX Planning Officer: Mr Nick Salt Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 19.08.2019 _________________________________________________________________

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. The sides and front of the dormer must be finished in a dark coloured cladding or tiles to match the finish on the main roof. Details of this finish must be approved by the Department prior to its application and the development undertaken in accordance with these details. The dormer finishes must be retained as such thereafter. Reason: To reduce the visual impact of the proposed dormer. Plans/Drawings/Information: This decision relates to drawing no. 250-01, date stamped as received on 16th July 2019. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

- 1.0 SITE

1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 22 Birchleigh Close in Onchan, a detached bungalow at the entrance to a typical 1970's style residential culdesac. The dwelling features a steeply pitched roof with a conservatory on the rea elevation, and a flat roof double dormer on the front (north) elevation. As it is on a corner plot, the property features a slightly larger front garden than the average for the area. There is a driveway measuring 3.1 metres across at the front of the dwelling. - 1.2 There are dormers on the fronts and rears of other properties in the area and many are finished in timber cladding or tiles to match the general colour of the roofing.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposal is threefold: - 2.2 The expansion of the driveway at the front by 4.4 metres to provide a total width of 7.5 metres for the parking of at least 2 vehicles. - 2.3 The replacement of the rear conservatory with an extension approximately 5 metres long and 4 metres wide. The extension would be two storeys, featuring a pitched roof and a window on each floor facing the rear. There would also be a patio door on the ground floor west elevation of the new extension. - 2.4 The south (rear) elevation would be altered via a flat roofed dormer extension to provide a first floor in the property. This would involve the removal of the existing chimneystack on the centre of the roof. The dormer would feature 2 windows, in total there would be 3 modestly sized windows on the new first floor. - 2.5 This proposal is an altered scheme following discussions between the case officer and applicants in relation to the refusal of 19/00375/B. The alterations from that application are a reduction in the first floor fenestration and a reduction in the length of the dormer, bringing it in from the gable side.

- 3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The proposal site is situated in an area covered by the Onchan Local Plan 2000. Within this plan it is zoned as Residential . - 3.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 sets out some general policies which should be considered when assessing an application in an area zoned as such. General Policy 2 (in part) is key to this application; "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."

3.3 Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan (IOMSP) is also useful when it comes to assessing this application: "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."

3.4 The Department's recently published (March 2019) Residential Design Guidance is not policy but is capable of being a material consideration in the assessment of planning applications. It is referenced in this report.

- 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 Alterations have been approved on this site for the existing conservatory (96/00106/B) and the bay window/French doors (01/00955/B). - 4.2 As noted in 2.5 of this report, a previous proposal was submitted (19/00375/B) and refused for two reasons:

• R1 - The proposed extensions would be out of keeping with the street scene of this part of Birchleigh Close and Hilberry Road, and with the character and appearance of the dwelling itself, due to its size and cumulative mass and the appearance of the rear of the building being out of balance with the front. In this respect the proposal does not accord with General Policy 2 (b,c,g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• R2 - The proposed first floor windows on the south (rear) elevation would result in a high risk of loss of privacy for the occupants of 8,9&10 Birchleigh Terrace due to their proximity and height in relation to corresponding habitable windows. In this respect the proposal does not accord with General Policy 2 (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Onchan District Commissioners recommend that the application be approved (06.08.19). - 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this application are the potential impacts of the proposal on the character and appearance of the dwelling and wider street scene, the parking and access and the amenity of the neighbours.

6.2 The driveway extension

• 6.2.1 Firstly, with regard to the driveway, it is considered that the provision of additional offstreet parking would reduce the impact and risk of on-street parking in this location particularly as the site is a corner plot with the busy Hilberry Road. Whilst no correspondence has been received from DoI Highways regarding these considerations, this aspect of the proposal would accord with GP2 (h&i) in that respect.
• 6.2.2 As per the recently published DEFA Residential Design Guidance (March 2019), driveway extensions can become a visually unacceptable feature if they result in an overall reduction of the garden frontage by 50% or more, In this case, the majority of the front/side garden area would remain and the extended driveway is not likely to unacceptably detract from the street scene or result in the site frontage appearing as a car park. Overall, the driveway extension aspect of the application is considered acceptable.
• 6.3 Character and Appearance of the extensions

• 6.3.1 Paragraph 4.6.3 of the Residential Design Guide (March 2019) states: "The position within the roof plane, size and proportion are also important aspects to consider. The size of any dormer should be secondary to the size of the roof in which it will be positioned. Therefore, dormers that would be as wide as the house and run flush or close to the elevations/roof ridge of the house will not normally be supported."

• 6.3.2 The dormer window proposed is set in from the gable, giving it a secondary appearance similar to other dormers in the area. Its ridge height relative to the main roof also achieves this. The addition of an extension to the existing roof to create a portico would also contribute towards preserving the character and appearance of the building, creating more uniformity and rhythm to the rear elevation.
• 6.3.3 Overall, the reduced nature of the proposal relative to the previously refused application alleviates the risk of harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling and wider area. Overall, the application accords with GP2 in this respect.
• 6.3.4 The Guidance also advises "Finishing the front and cheeks of the dormers in a tile or tile like material can reduce this impact" and the applicant is happy with a condition which requires this type of finish.

6.4 Impact on neighbour amenity

• 6.4.1 It is also important to assess any potential loss of amenity from the perspective of neighbours. Referring to the recently published DEFA Residential Design Guidance (March 2019), the main consideration around this would be loss of privacy and overlooking particularly on dwellings or gardens within 20 metres of the extension. In this case, the rea elevations of the three terraces cottages on Birchleigh Terrace (Hilberry Road) would be most at risk of overlooking from the three new first floor windows - particularly the one on the larger annex extension.
• 6.4.2 On a case officer site visit on 04/07/19 it was noted that many of the windows on the properties to the rear which were closest to the application site appeared to be bathroom and/or utility windows. It is considered that the risk of perceived overlooking would be reduced from the original proposed given the reduced window sizes proposed, and the nature of the respective properties. The overlooking risk would not be substantially greater than that from the adjacent property's rear dormer. In this respect, impact on neighbour amenity is not so likely to warrant an unacceptable risk and a reason for refusal. No objections were received from neighbours on either the previous or current applications.
• 6.4.3 Overbearing and overshadowing impact has also been considered in relation to the adjacent property (No.20). A development should not result in significant levels of loss of day light or overshadowing, especially to primary habitable rooms, or to private gardens. As outlined in the RDG 2019, a simple check can be undertaken in relation to this issue.

• o A side view is drawn which includes the proposal site and the main face of the neighbouring property.
• o A point is identified which is 2 metres above ground level on the closest wall with a relevant window of the neighbouring building.
• o A line is drawn from this point at a 25 degree angle towards the application site. If no part of the proposal is above this line, there will still be the potential for good daylight to the interior.

There would be the potential for some levels of shadowing in the evening onto the garden of No.20. However, this is not considered likely to be significant due to the pitched roof nature of the extension. Overall, shadowing would not be so sufficient as to unacceptably impact the amenity of the neighbours.

• 6.4.4 Any development should ensure that existing residents can enjoy appropriate levels of comfort and enjoyment of their properties without their outlooks being impacted by an overbearing building/structure. The positioning, design and scale of an extension/new build dwellings should not be dominant or have an adverse impact on the primary windows of a primary habitable room or on the private garden that may be present in a neighbouring property. The outlook from the windows of No.20 is not considered likely to be substantially

affected by the proposals. Overall, the revised proposal accords on balance with GP2 in respect of the amenity of the neighbours.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 In summary, the proposal accords on balance with GP2 of the IOMSP and the Department's Residential Design Guidance. Visually, and in terms of amenity, it is considered an acceptable improvement on the previously refused application.

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: 22.08.2019 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.