DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 19/00387/B Applicant: Mr And Mrs Steven Wilkinson Proposal: Demolition of existing garage and construction of two storey extension at side of property to create integral garage with living accommodation at first floor level, together with removal of existing conservatory and construction of single storey kitchen/dining extension at rear (in association with RB application 19/00388/CON) Site Address: Eburacum 57 Selborne Drive Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 3NJ Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 11.06.2019 Site Visit: 11.06.2019 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 13.06.2019 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. Whilst there is no issue with the alterations and extensions at the rear, the proposed extension above the garage, as viewed from the front would have adverse impacts on the neighbouring property and not preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area which would conflict with the RDG 2019 (Section 4.4), Environment Policy 35 of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Policy CA/1.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are mentioned in Article 6(4):

No. 55 Selborne Drive, Douglas, as they satisfy all requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (JULY 2018). _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report THE SITE

1.1 The application site is the curtilage of No. 57 Selborne Drive, an existing two storey Victorian semi-detached dwelling located on the north-western corner of Selborne Drive in Douglas. The existing dwelling has a prominent blank end gable elevation facing over road. - 1.2 The lies directly south east of River Glass and is situated close to the intersection between Eleanora Drive and Selborne Drive. The Bramble Brae lodging is situated 102m northwest of the proposal site. - 1.3 The property still has its Victorian characteristics such as its spar dash render with coloured brick work used on the facade, high pitched roof, front door to the side of the approach elevation, bay windows to sit in, slate-like roof, although the property has been modified through the installation of replacement windows and front door which was approved in 2013. - 1.4 The detached garage has an area of 3.2m by 5.5m and in front of this is a straight driveway which has an area of 3m by 10.7m - sufficient to accommodate a single vehicle without space for the turning of a vehicle which will have to enter or exit the property in a forward gear. This garage sits on the boundary between Ebarecum and its neighbour at No. 55 Selborne Drive, situated on the south-east elevation of the property. - 1.5 The immediate area is characterised by large semi-detached and detached Victorian and Edwardian dwellings interspaced with well-trimmed low walled gardens lined with properly formed hedges which occupy the spaces between the various site boundaries along the street (on the front boundaries). The dominant materials tend to be smooth or rough cast render and slate roofs with prominent projecting gables over squared bays. PROPOSAL

2.1 The application seeks approval for the demolition of existing garage and construction of two storey extension at the side of the property to create integral garage and living accommodation at first floor level, together with removal of existing conservatory and construction of single storey kitchen/dinning extension at rear. - 2.2 The first works will involve the removal of the detached garage and link and their replacement with a two-storey extension which will house a garage on the lower floor, as well as a bathroom and dresser on the upper floor. The lower floor will be longer than the upper floor by 4.4m stretching towards the rear of the property. This extension will push the building away from the boundary with 55 Selborne Road by 0.8m. - 2.3 The other work will be a rear extension which will project from the existing breakfast area by 4.6m and have a width of 4.37m, creating a new dinning for the dwelling. Four roof lights will be created on the low pitched roof to increase lighting for the kitchen and dining. Red Cambrian roofing tiles will be used as roofing material for the extension which will also have four white UPVC double glazed fold aside doors on the south-east elevation, in addition to a

• 2.6m by 1.2m white UPVC double glazed windows on the north-west elevation. This extension will be finished in spar dashed render to match the existing building. PLANNING POLICY
• 3.1 The site lies within an area designated as 'Predominantly Residential' on the Douglas Local Plan of 1998 and within the designated Selborne Drive Conservation Area, as such it is fundamental to consider Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 which states:

3.2 Environment Policy 35: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special

features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."

Other policies relevant to the application are:

3.3 General Policy 2 (Development in accordance with the land-use zoning); "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 It is also important to consider guidance and policy regarding development in Conservation Areas: Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man) - Policy CA/2, (Conservation Areas): "When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application." - 3.5 POLICY CA/6 DEMOLITION Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above, may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed new development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole. - 3.6 Sections 3.2, 3.3 and 4.4 of the Residential Design Guide 2019.

• 3.6.1 Section 3.2: Potential Visual Impact of an Extension upon the Existing House

• 3.2.1 The first aspect which the Department considers when determining the suitability of an extension to a house is whether the design of the extension fits with the existing property. Extensions should generally appear subordinate to the existing house i.e. appear as smaller additions rather than being overbearing features dominating the existing house.
• 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 above.

• 3.6.2 Section 3.3: Potential Visual Impact upon the Street Scene/Landscape

• 3.3.1 Extensions should generally be in keeping with the character and appearance of the street in which they are seen. Taking note of the spaces between existing dwellings and

adhering to the front building line are important aspects when considering the appropriateness of an extension in the street scene. In the case of dwellings which form part of a group of properties and which have a prominent appearance within the street scene; it will be especially important to ensure any extension does not adversely affect either the overall group of dwellings or the individual dwelling.

• 3.6.3 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.

• 4.4.3 Whether the side extension is single or two storeys, the height and width of these side extensions should be proportionate to the size of the main dwelling. The width should be significantly less than the width of the main dwelling. The ridge height of single storey side extensions should normally be below the eaves level of a two-storey house to give clear definition between single-storey and two-storey elements.
• 4.4.4 Generally, where the property stands in a line of detached/semi-detached dwellings and the extension would fill in the gap, there is a risk that the extension will create a terraced appearance. This is not always in the interests of maintaining the character of the street, individual house, and in the interests of visual amenity, should be avoided.
• 4.4.5 One way of maintaining a visual break would be to set back the extension behind the front of the dwelling by a metre to create a clear break. In some circumstances only the first floor would be required to be set back by 1 metre, although this will be determined on a case by case basis. However, it is still advisable that the ground floor should be set back behind the front elevation, even if only by 0.3m to create a "shadow" which avoids the unsightly joining of old with new finishes, whilst also providing a distinction, albeit modest, of the extension from the main house.
• 4.4.6 A second way of maintaining a visual break would be by leaving a gap of at least 1 metre between the side of the extension and the boundary of the property. However, a slight setback should still be retained, potentially at first floor level at least. Again, this design helps avoiding the "terracing effect". In any case, where space permits the Department would encourage applicants to retain a pedestrian passageway, between the side extension and common boundary. This will also enable access for maintenance purposes, filling of oil tanks, allow transportation of refuse and garden waste, without passing through Habitable Rooms and give the dwelling a setting within its own plot. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 This application runs contemporaneously with PA 19/00388/CON for Registered building consent for the Demolition of existing garage and conservatory at the rear of the property. - 4.2 The other application related to the application involved the Installation of replacement windows and front door which was approved in 2013 (PA13/00285/B). REPRESENTATIONS

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

5.1 Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division 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 National Heritage 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 Manx Utilities Authority 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. - 5.4 The Owner of No. 55 Selborne Drive, the neighbouring detached property on the southeast elevation of the dwelling have stated that they object to the application and have made the following comments in a letter dated 30 April 2019:

• i. The proposed extension fails to take note of the spaces between buildings which is an important and very significant characteristic of Selborne Drive and the Conservation Area. Conversely, it will significantly reduce the spacing between the buildings with our property, its neighbour by approximately two thirds, down from 5.1m to less than 1.8m.
• ii. Being only 55.9cm from the boundary it is not in keeping with the nature of the Conservation area in maintaining the low density nature of all the other properties in Selborne Drive.
• iii. It is not in keeping with the historic street Pattern and the definition of property boundaries. 55.9cm is significantly less than the 1m minimum recommended in the residential Design Guide published in March 2019, noting the higher standards are to be applied in conservation areas (note also that it is only 33.1m from the boundary at the rear) it is not consistent with its surroundings and thus detracts from the street scene, vista and visual amenity of the conservation Area in which it sits.
• iv. As it would largely fill the gap with the neighbouring property, this will create a terracing effect when viewed from most angles via the street.
• v. It significantly impacts upon the detached nature of our property which has a prominent appearance within the street scene.
• vi. It is not in keeping with other extensions on Selborne Drive, including its own adjoining semi-detached property (no.59).
• vii. It breaks the symmetry with the adjoining semi-detached property.
• viii. It will have a significant visual impact upon the immediate group of surrounding properties.
• ix. We believe that it would lead to an overdue development of the site and an overbearing use of the restricted space available to the side of the property.

1. The rear of our property enjoys a sheltered south facing aspect with a patio and mature garden to the rear of the house. Whenever possible, we enjoy spending time sitting and entertaining on the outdoor furniture on the patio and also spending time in the garden. We've observed that there has already been some significant visual impact in this area via the removal of several mature trees along the opposite boundary (i.e. the boundary between numbers 57 and 59) which we assume is to make space for the proposed single storey kitchen extension to the rear of the neighbours property and to which we are not objecting. However, we object to the demolition of the existing garage and construction of a two storey extension to the side of next property based on the:

• a. Overbearing and detrimental impact that this will have on the residential and visual amenity to the rear of our property.
• b. Being in such proximity (only 3.1cm from the boundary) together with its scale, massing and height, it presents an overbearing and intrusive element at the rear of our property. This is exacerbated by the extension's rear wall being built beyond that line of the main building wall of our house.
• c. It will also have a significant and overbearing impact upon the outlook from within the primary semi-circular bay window of the immediate adjacent habitable room.

ASSESSMENT

6.1 The issues in this case are whether the works would have any adverse impact on the character or appearance of the main dwelling, whether the proposal will result in any adverse impact on neighbouring properties, in addition to resulting in any adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

6.2 Selborne Drive Conservation Area contains a high quality mix of properties which are predominantly residential and are principally of the Edwardian style of architecture, although there are a significant number of Victorian residences which creates some form of diversity to the mix. The properties maintain a uniform set back giving a sense of Edwardian elegance to the area. Moreover, the setback from the side boundaries is significantly high for most of the properties on Selborne Drive, when compared with other streets in Selborne Drive conservation area.

6.3 The introduction of an extension of this height at the side elevation, with its proximity, together with height, massing and scale, will have significant impacts on the neighbouring property, as well as detracting from the general character of the conservation area. To begin with, the building would result in a structure where there is none currently in the vicinity. Its distance from the adjacent dwelling at 55 Selborne is considered to be insufficient and would result in overshadowing, considering the guidance provided in section 4.4 of the Residential Design Guidance of March 2019. This overbearing and intrusive impact will be very significant when viewed from the rear of the neighbouring property as the garage extension will project significantly beyond the main wall of the house impacting on the semi-circular bay windows of the habitable room siting at that section of the dwelling. - 6.4 The extensions to the rear would increase the mass of the dwelling substantially, which would give it a much greater visual impact when viewed from the side. However, this impact is considered acceptable due to the nature of the site which provides a large land area at the rear of the property; the site is narrow but has a significantly long span when compared to most sites in the Conservation Area. Additionally, the use of spar dashed rendering throughout, in addition to the use of Red Cambrian roofing would enable the extension's to tie in with the main dwelling. - 6.5 In respect of the impact on the visual amenities of the street scene, the proposed twostorey garage extension will violate the spacing between the properties; a key characteristics of Selborne drive. This space is usually used for the creation of well-trimmed low walled side gardens for majority of the properties on the drive, making it a significant feature. Also, since the property stands in a line of detached/semi-detached dwellings, it will fill the gap with its neighbouring property No.55 and alter the historic street pattern creating a terraced appearance when viewed from the street scene; making the section of the drive appear to be high density. Moreover, the extension will break the symmetry with its adjoining semi-detached property, in addition to not being in keeping with other side elevations on the drive, thus violating Policy CA/1 and Environment Policy 35

6.6 In conclusion it is considered that the proposed development would fail to comply with the provisions of Environment Policy 35 of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Policy CA/1, as it would not adequately protect the amenities of the adjacent property Number 55 Selborne Drive. Specifically, it is considered that the separation distance of approximately 1.8 metres between the side elevation of Number 55 Selborne and the proposed dwelling would result in an unacceptable level of an overbearing impact upon the property. This development will also alter the structure of the street scene significantly, detracting from the special character of the Conservation Area.

CONCLUSION

7.1 The proposed rear extension is considered to be an acceptable development, but the proposed two-storey garage extension would have adverse impacts on the neighbouring property and not preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area, and as such does not comply with Environment Policy 35 from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Policy CA/1. Planning Officers cannot recommend split decisions on planning applications, so even though the rear extension part of this application would be acceptable, the whole application is recommended for refusal due to the proposed side extension (garage). 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 : 08.07.2019 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.