DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 19/00375/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: Refused Date of Recommendation: 05.06.2019 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. 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. - R 2. 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. _______________________________________________________________

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.

- 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 roof length flat dormer extension to provide a full first floor in the property. The existing kitchen dining area which protrudes out further will be retained as a lean-to annex. This would involve the removal of the existing chimneystack on the centre of the roof.

- 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."

- 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). - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Onchan District Commissioners have no objection to the application (30.04.19). 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 The size and mass of the proposed dormer is significant, compared with the area of roof. Flat roofed dormers are not generally welcomed as positive additions to a roof but can be considered acceptable where the dormer is of modest size and does not completely change the character of the property - flat roofed dormers exist in the area and on this property and are not always unacceptable.
• 6.3.2 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." It is considered that this proposal would not be in keeping with generally permitted or encouraged dormer design and would be out keeping with the character and appearance of the dwelling and wider area. In this respect the proposal does not accord with GP2 (b,c,g). Whilst not directly facing the road, the extension would be visible from Hilberry Road and if this application is approved, there would be little to reasonably resist the addition of similar features elsewhere in the area resulting in a considerable negative change to the character and appearance of those properties.
• 6.3.3 With regard to the two-storey extension in place of the existing conservatory, the size of the annex proposed would be out of keeping with the dormer bungalow character of the site dwelling and those immediately adjacent and facing. There are two storey dwellings further into Birchleigh Close, however the frontage of the site dwelling in this case would not fit with the proposed rear elevation and the extensions would therefore be incongruous with the street scene. The existing steeply pitched tiled roof does not stand out when driving up Hilberry Road, and blends with its surroundings. The proposed extensions however would significantly increase the visual prominence and impact of the dwelling in a manner which would be out of proportion for the area, and unbalance the dwelling, therefore not according with GP2 (b,c,g).
• 6.3.4 Whilst this could be controlled via planning conditions, no details have been provided regarding the finishes of the either the roof or elevations of the proposed extensions.

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 There would be an increased risk of overlooking on No's 8,9&10 on Birchlieigh Terrace, which is considered potentially harmful to their privacy. In this respect, the proposal does not accord with GP2 (g).

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 In summary, whilst the proposed driveway extension is considered acceptable for the reasons outlined in 6.2, the rear dormer extension and two storey annex extension would both be detrimental to the character and appearance of the site as well as the residential amenity of the neighbours to the rear, and would not accord with the provisions of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. For these reasons, the application is recommended for approval. - 8.0 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 the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Refused Date : 05.06.2019 Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

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.