DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 19/00718/B Applicant: Mr Kendrick & Mrs Helen Shaw Proposal: Alterations and erection of single storey extension to side elevation Site Address: 23 Crovens Close Douglas Isle of Man IM2 7AH Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 15.07.2019 Site Visit: 15.07.2019 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 20.08.2019 _________________________________________________________________

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.

Plans/Drawings/Information:

This approval relates to the Location plan, Block Plan as existing, photographs and drawing number HLK/19/0128/1 date stamped and received 25 June 2019, and Block Plan as proposed and drawing number HLK/19/0128/2A date stamped and received 12 August 2019.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE SITE

1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing semi-detached dwelling which sits on the southern side of Croven's Close which ends in a cul de sac. The property is a two storey modern dwelling with the entrance door on the right side of the front elevation and directly adjacent to the driveway. Above the entrance door is a pitch roofed open porch which projects

• towards the front garden by about 600mm. There are decorative brick wall panels on sections of the front elevation.
• 1.2 To the rear of the house is a hipped roofed conservatory which projects out from the rear of the dining by 4.2m and has a width of 3m. This conservatory which is 3.1m high has a low wall which has smooth cement render painted to match the main building, while the upper section constitutes the white UPVC double glazed conservatory. This is built on the boundary with the neighbouring property, number 22 which has a similar sized conservatory built slightly away from this boundary with the application site. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 This application seeks approval for alterations and erection of a single storey extension to side elevation. - 2.2 The rear works will involve the removal of the existing conservatory and dwarf wall adjacent to boundary with the existing structure above cill level adapted to form new sun lounge with flat roof over. The wall adjacent to the boundary will be completely reconstructed slightly further away from the boundary line to provide more space between existing neighbouring conservatory and as such the width of the new structure will be 250mm narrower. The proposed sun lounge will also have a lower height than the conservatory as its height will be 2.9m (200mm lower than the existing conservatory). This change will not affect the length of the new sun lounge which will mirror the existing conservatory and remain at

• 4.2m. This room will have a window 1.3m x 1.45m looking southwest out into the rear garden. Double glazed bifold doors (brown colour internally and white colour internally) will be installed facing northwest and leading out into the paved patio area at the rear garden.

2.3 The works on the side elevation will be 2.8m wide and 3.5m long, linking to the kitchen. The extension will be 4.1m high on the side of the main wall and 2.5m from the ground level to the eaves. It will have a lean-to roof with roof pitch angle mirroring the pitch angle of the hipped roof on the main dwelling facing northwest. This extension will have two partitions and will serve as a guest toilet and utility space for the dwelling. A window 1.2m x 1m will be positioned at the rear and serve the toilet, while an identical window will be installed on the front elevation of the extension to serve the utility room. Two panel doors will be installed to serve this extension, with one serving the new door way linking the kitchen while the other will be installed on the northwest elevation to connect to the concrete area around the extension. PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Douglas Local Plan 1998 (Map 3) as 'Predominantly Residential'. As such, the following Strategic Plan provisions are applicable: - 3.2 Paragraph 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." - 3.3 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:

• (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".

3.4 Sections of the Residential Design Guide 2019 will also be considered in the assessment of the application.

• 3.4.1 Section 3.1: General Considerations for Householder Extensions

• 3.1.1 House extensions are one of the most common forms of development. Individually and cumulatively extensions can have a significant impact on the quality of the built environment. When altering or extending buildings in order to modernise, adapt, enlarge or extend them the overall character and form of the buildings and spaces around them are affected. Guidance is therefore required to provide advice as to what is acceptable in planning terms.
• 3.1.2 General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (IOMSP) indicates that generally house extensions and new houses within areas designated for development will be permitted, providing that they reflect and enhance the appearance of the existing property, adjoining properties, and their setting in terms of scale, design and materials. However, there are a substantial number of detailed issues that need to be taken into account in designing domestic extensions. This section provides general guidance on issues that are likely to apply to all forms of extensions, and then more detailed additional advice in relation to different potential types of extensions.
• 3.1.3 The main design elements that should be considered include:

• o the relationship to the original part of the building - including materials, design and detailing (such as window materials and proportions);
• o the relationship with adjoining properties, including the building line, roof line, orientation, and the slope of the site; and
• o the pitch, shape and materials of the original roof, including the presence of original dormers and chimneys.

• 3.1.4 All extensions and alterations, particularly those incorporating modern design approaches, should be considered holistically with the original/main building and its setting in the landscape/townscape to avoid an awkward jarring of materials and forms. However, welljudged modern designs using contemporary and sustainable materials will be welcomed, as the Department does not wish to restrict creative designs where they can be integrated successfully into their context. Such approaches, where well designed, can serve to both improve the sustainability of buildings and significantly improve the appearance of buildings to the general benefit of the streetscene.

• 3.4.2 Paragraph 3.2.2 (RDG 2019)

• 3.2.2 Extensions should generally have the same roof pitch (angle) and shape as the existing dwelling and the height (roof ridge) should be lower than that of the main building. Generally, pitch roofs are the preferred roof type compared to flat roofs which are generally inappropriate forms of development, especially if publically viewable, unless the existing property has a flat/low pitched roof design. The extension should normally incorporate any design/interesting features of the existing dwelling (with windows and doors replicating the design, proportions and materials of the original building, and being in line with the existing openings) unless a deliberate design decision has been made to adopt a different approach - as set out on the next page.

3.4.3 Section 4.2: Single storey rear extension

• 4.2.1 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.

• 3.4.4 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. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The application site has not been the subject of any previous planning applications and no application within the vicinity of the application site is considered to be specifically material to the assessment of this application.

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

5.1 The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division although consulted on 10 July 2019, has not commented on this application at the time of drafting this report, and so it is assumed that there are no objections to the application.

5.2 Manx Utilities Authority although consulted on 10 July 2019, has not commented on this application at the time of drafting this report, and so it is assumed that there are no objections to the application. - 5.3 Douglas Borough Council has no objections to the application as stated in a letter dated 24 July 2019. ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key consideration here is the visual impact on the character and appearance of the dwelling, the street scene and the impact on neighbouring dwellings. 6.2 Impact on the Character and Appearance of the site

• 6.2.1 The extensions to the rear would sit on a smaller foot print when compared to the existing, which would give it a slightly lesser visual impact when viewed from the side or the rear. Additionally, the use of rendering and painting to match the existing dwelling would be an acceptable use of material. Whilst it should have been more appropriate for this extension to have the same roof pitch as the main dwelling; based on the guides stipulated in paragraph 3.2.2 of the RDG 2019, this extension will not be publicly viewable and as such its impact on the appearance of the dwelling is diminished. Besides, a pitch roof on this extension would have increased its impact on the neighbouring dwelling seeing the walls have been changed to solid walls. As well, the proposed height will only be 750mm higher than a wall which the applicant can put up on this boundary under the Permitted Development Order. Thus, the development can be judged to be an acceptable development within its immediate setting.

• 6.2.2 Considering the side extension, its massing and finishing would tie in with the main dwelling. The use of slate roofing to match the existing as well as the preservation of the roof pitch angle of the main dwelling would also be in keeping with the existing. It is also worth noting that this extension is of a smaller scale when compared to similar works on many of the properties within Coven's Close (Most of the dwellings on Croven's Close have larger additions to the side, although a greater proportion of these additions serve as garages).

6.3 Impact on neighbouring dwellings

6.3.1 Regarding the proposed works on the dwelling, overlooking or other loss of residential amenity is not considered a risk. This is hinged on the fact that the wall of the sun lounge will be set back further away from the boundary with No.22 and have a smaller aperture on the rear elevation (window opening) than existed with the conservatory. As well, the side extension will have no window installed on the side elevation facing No. 24, and the massing of the proposed is modest when compared to other side extensions on the cul de sac.

• 6.3.2 Whilst the side extension will be closer to the boundary with No. 24, there is an allowance of 1.3m which falls within acceptable limits for such extensions (this is larger than is obtainable on most boundaries within the neighbourhood). Besides the 1.6m timber boundary fence will be retained to preserve the existing privacy levels between these adjoining properties.

6.4 Impact when viewed from the street

• 6.4.1 From the street, directly facing the dwelling's front elevation, the side extension would be an evident alteration. However, this change will only be visible when directly in front of the dwelling as the side extension is significantly set back from the building line when viewed from the front elevation. This extension will have minimal visual impact given the positioning of the extension in relation to other dwellings within the street scene. As such, the proposal would accord with GP2 the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and the relevant sections of the RDG 2019.

6.5 As the extensions are relatively modest (an 18.5% increase in footprint), and are within the existing residential curtilage, the overall impact on the dwelling and the surrounding area is minimal and as such the proposal is deemed acceptable.

• 6.4.2 The rear extension will not be visible from any vantage point along the street and as such will not have any impact on the outlook when viewed from the street. There is a 1.8m hedging which encloses the rear garden and screens it from the view of the surrounding dwellings.

6.4.3 The applicant has stated that on acquisition of the properties on Croven's Close, the owners of the dwellings were given the option for garages to be built on the side at an additional cost but he and some of the residents were financially constrained at that time and as such these properties did not include the single storey side additions; designed as an optional integral component of the dwelling.

CONCLUSION In summary, the proposed extensions would not significantly alter the appearance of the dwelling so much as to be refused on these grounds. The dwelling currently does, and would, have respect for the character and appearance of the area. The proposed extensions and alterations are therefore 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 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.