Loading document...
Application No.: 10/00733/B Applicant: Mr \& Mrs Arthur Redwood-Sawyerr Proposal: Erection of a ground floor and first floor extension to dwelling house Site Address: 54 Meadow Crescent Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 1NL ### Considerations Case Officer : Mr Ian Brooks Expected Decision Level: Senior Planning Officer ### Written Representations 3 Horseshoe Avenue Braddan Isle Of Man Objects to the proposal 1 Horseshoe Avenue Saddlestone Douglas Isle Of Man Objects to the proposal ### Consultations Consultee : Drainage Services Manager Notes: No objection Consultee : Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose, has no traffic management or road safety implications. Consultee : Douglas Corporation Notes: No objection
The application site represents the residential curtilage of 54 Meadow Crescent which is an existing semi-detached dwelling situated at the north eastern side of Meadow Crescent, opposite Scoill Vallajeelt which leads off Vicarage Road in Douglas. The property sits on a modest plot and comprises a two storey pitched roof dwelling with adjoining garage.
The proposed planning application is seeking approval for the erection of a ground floor rear extension (measuring ) and an adjoining first floor extension above. The proposed first floor extension would provide additional living accommodation and would extend over the existing garage. It would project at the same height as the ridge line of the garage to the rear elevation of the dwelling and would have matching materials throughout.
The application site is within an area of "Residential Use" under the Douglas South Local Plan, which was adopted by Tynwald in 1998. The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains two policies which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application - General Policy 2 and paragraph 8.12.1
There is one previous planning application considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application.
10/00159/B - Erection of a ground floor and first floor extension to dwellinghouse - refused on 31sth March 2010
The reason for reason was "The proposed development would be contrary to General Policy 2 (parts b, c, and g), Strategic Policy 5 and Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 by reason of its design and its adverse impact on the locality. The proposed extension would introduce a flat roof which would appear alien to the existing property and would have a detrimental impact on character and visual amenities of the surrounding area."
The Douglas Corporation and the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure does not oppose the application.
The occupiers of No. 1 Horseshoe Avenue has objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) overlooking and loss of privacy, 2) Alter the character of the neighbourhood and make the area more densely built up, 3) negative impact on the value of their property and surrounding properties, 4) Overshadowing, 5) They will be looking onto a large wall and into the neighbours bedroom window.
The owners and / or occupiers of 3 Horseshoe Avenue, Douglas has objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) Loss of light on rear garden, 2) Overlooking would result in loss of privacy, 3) Proposal would not be in-keeping with the area, 4) The dwellings would appear too close together, 5) that the development will devalue their property, 6) The proposed gradient on the extension will not match the rest of the property or any of the other properties in the area.
The key issues in considering this application are 1) the visual impact of the development and 2) the impact on the neighbouring properties.
This application is to address the previous concerns regarding the design of the extension. The case officer for the previous application stated: "The design of the proposed rear extension would not be in-keeping with the character of the existing dwelling as the proposal would introduce a flat roof extension which would appear alien to the existing property. As a result, the side and rear elevations do not represent a continuation of the existing form or general design of the dwellinghouse, due to its elongated and rather objectionable appearance. It is acknowledged that even though the development is sited to the rear and the majority of which would not be readily viewed from Meadow Crescent (to the front elevation) or Ashbourne Avenue (to the rear); development should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island (whether it can be viewed from the public thoroughfare or not) and it is considered that in this case the proposed extension fails to address this requirement"
This current application is now a sloping roof instead of a flat roof. It is considered this current proposal has addressed the previous concerns by not introducing a flat roof extension into the locality.
In respect on the impact on the neighbouring properties, the previous case officer considered No's 1 and 3 Horseshoe Avenue would be most affected by the proposed extension, due to their proximity. The previous case officer stated that: "In terms of 1 Horseshoe Avenue, it is viewed that as the proposal would not encroach further to the neighbouring property; as it would not increase in height beyond the existing ridge line and with obscure glazing on the side elevation; the residential amenity of the neighbouring property of 1 Horseshoe Avenue would not be adversely affected by the proposal." "In terms of 3 Horseshoe Avenue, it is judged that there would be minimal loss of light to the rear garden and it would be unjust to warrant a refusal on this basis. The distance between the rear elevations of the application site and 3 Horseshoe Avenue is approximately 12.5 m which is appropriate. Due to the current orientation of the properties, the introduction of the first floor rear window would primarily overlook the car park area at the rear of the application site and not the rear yard of 3 Horseshoe Avenue. It is acknowledged that there would be a limited degree of overlooking onto part of the rear yard of 3 Horseshoe Avenue (although at an acute angle); however, there is existing levels of overlooking due to the layout of the surrounding dwellings and it is considered on that on balance that the private or public residential amenity of the neighbouring properties would not be unduly affected by the proposed application as to warrant a refusal of the application." "The concerns which have been raised regarding the proposed extension decreasing the gap between the dwellings and would provide less open air space and make the properties too close to each other, do not hold enough substance as to merit a refusal. It is considered that the 3700 mm (W) (L) ground floor rear extension would result in a minor encroachment towards the neighbouring properties. The gap between the application site and the nearest neighbouring property of 1 Horseshoe Avenue is 8 m which is significant separation and not too close or overbearing."
This proposal is essentially the same as the previous application, apart from the roof design, and therefore it would be unreasonable to argue a different conclusion in terms of the impact on No's 1 and 3 Horseshoe Avenue.
The proposed development would not be readily viewed from the public thoroughfares of Meadow Crescent, Horseshoe Avenue and Ashbourne Avenue due to the orientation of the properties and due to the boundary treatment which borders the site. It is considered the proposal has addressed the previous concerns and therefore planning permission should not be withheld.
It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to condition in the attached schedule.
The local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The Highways Division of the Department of Transport is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part of. As such, the Highways Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
The owners and / or occupiers of 1 and 3 Horseshoe Avenue have commented on planning matters and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 10.08.2010 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This permission relates to the erection of ground and first floor extension as shown in drawing numbers 01 and 02 date stamped 17th May 2010.
C 3. No facing and roofing materials shall be used other than materials similar to those used on the existing building.
C 4. The windows to be formed at first floor level in the north west facing elevation of the extension shall only be glazed or -re-glazed with obscure glass.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to the Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 11/18/10 Signed : Senior Planning Officer Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
