DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 20/00997/B Applicant: Mr Richard & Mrs Vivenne Welch Proposal: Alterations, extension of existing dormer window, rendering works, formation of additional parking and widening of vehicular access Site Address: Conister Hillberry Road Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 3JP Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken: 07.10.2020 Site Visit: 07.10.2020 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 20.05.2021 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The dormer extension which would be higher and project above the ridge of the main roof, and which is of a design which is not in keep with the design of the existing building would fail General Policy 2 (b), (c) & (g) of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2019. - R 2. The dormer in terms of its size, position, design and close proximity would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking into the neighbouring property Nr 12a Birch Hill Grove resulting in a significant adverse impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring property contrary to General Policy 2 (g) of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2019. - R 3. The additional parking as proposed would give raise to a significant area of parking provision to the frontage of the dwelling/garden which would result in the appearance and character of the front garden appearing as a large car park which would adversely affect the visual amenities of the street scene and the character of the area and the property itself, all contrary to General Policy 2 (b), (c), (g) of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2019. _______________________________________________________________

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 not mentioned in Article 6(4) (or 4(2)):

Owner/Occupier of the Haven, Hillberry Road Owner/Occupier of 12 Birch Hill Grove Owner/Occupier of 12(A) Birch Hill Grove

as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Conister, Hillberry Road, Onchan, a two-storey detached dwelling located on the east of Hillberry Road, between its junction with Birch Hill Crescent and Birch Hill Avenue. The dwelling is currently vacant. - 1.2 The dwelling consists of a two-storey hipped-roof main dwelling and several extension. These extensions include a two-storey pitched-roof extension on the south (front) elevation, a single-storey flat-roof extension on the south elevation (the flat roof is also a roof terrace with boundary walls), a flat-roof dormer on the north (rear) elevation roof, a single-story flat-roof extension on the north elevation, a hipped roof single-storage garage on the west elevation. - 1.3 There is a front driveway from the entrance leading to the middle of the south elevation. To the west of driveway, the existing surface is hardened with the concrete until the end of the garage. The rest of the site is covered with grass. - 1.4 There is a short boundary wall against Hillberry Road while the other boundaries have hedges around 2m tall. There is a number of mature trees behind the boundary wall. - 1.5 The end of the existing flat roof dormer is higher than the ridge of the main roof. The connection of the dormer with the main dwelling is at the ridge of the main roof. - 1.6 The applicant also owns or is occupying Weyham, which is on the northwest of Consiter, and Cronkvill, which is on the northwest of Weyham. Both are being used as part of the Beehive Kindergarten.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposed is the alterations, extension of existing dormer window, rendering works, and formation of additional parking and widening of vehicular access. - 2.2 The proposed work includes a number of physical changes to the site, including:

• o extend the existing hipped roof of the main dwelling to a pitched roof;
• o extend the existing flat roof dormer on the north elevation;
• o hardening existing front garden to work as driveway and parking space;
• o demolition of part of the boundary wall to widening the front access;
• o changing the existing walled roof terraced to a glass balustrade;
• o external elevation renovation, including render, fascia, soffit and bargeboards;
• o replacing a window with a double door on the rear extension.

2.3 The end of the proposed flat roof dormer is higher than the ridge of the main roof. The connection of the dormer with the main dwelling is at the ridge of the main roof. - 2.4 The proposed additional driveway and parking space will increase the harden area for over 100%. It will remove the front garden complete. Permeable material will be used for the harden surface.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The erection of the dwelling was APPROVED under PA 9237 in 1958. There is no dormer on the approved plan.

- 4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 In terms of local policy, the site lies within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East. The application was submitted before the Area Plan for the East come into effect (and assessment is made after the Plan come into effect) but the local policies has not changed compare to the Onchan Local Plan 2000. - 4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: - 4.3 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
• (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;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
• (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan."

4.4 "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 an existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general." - 4.5 Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards." The currents stands are set out in Appendix 7. - 4.6 Appendix 7.6 states typical residential development should have "2 spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the building." - 4.7 Residential Design Guidance (July 2019) provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to an existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property. - 4.8 RDG 3.2 Potential Visual Impact of an Extension upon the Existing House sets out key consideration regarding the general impact of extension. It states that extension should generally appear subordinate to the existing house and the height of the roof ridge of the extension should be lower than the roof of the main building. - 4.9 RDG 4.6 Dormer Extensions sets out some key considerations. These include a general concern for the potential impact on the character and appearance of both the individual property and the wider street scene. There is also a concern for overlooking if not created for a

• non-habitable room with obscured glazing. There is a general assumption against dormers if they are publicly visible. It should generally have a pitched roof. Finishing in a tile or tiled like material can reduce the visual impact. The position and size should be secondary to the roof which will be positioned on.
• 4.10 RDG 4.7 Roof Terraces, Balconies, Decking and Patios sets out some key consideration. These include a general concern for unreasonable overlooking of neighbouring properties, especially for terraced or semi-detached properties. Large separation distances to neighbouring boundaries and habitable room window or strategically placed screens will help avoid such issues. In addition, a projecting balcony can result in an alien and top-heavy feature so thoughts should be given to minimising such visual impact.
• 4.11 RDG 5 sets out key considerations regarding architectural details. These include window details and external finishing. The general idea is that the extension should have a similar style with the main dwelling for a coherent appearance unless the clash between modern and traditional design can be handled with elegance.
• 4.12 RDG 6 "The Wider Site" sets out some key considerations regarding boundary treatment, trees, the driveway, and front garden.
• 4.13 RDG 6.3 "Driveways and Front Gardens" states that front gardens provide an important physical boundary between a dwelling and the public realm. While increased car ownership resulting in increased demand for car parking space, the creation of an off-street parking space normally requires the provision of new access, which can result in the loss of at least one onstreet parking space. Proposals, which do not result in a net benefit, are unlikely to be supported.
• 4.14 RDG 6.3.4 states: "Proposals which result in the loss of more than 50% of the existing front lawned/landscaped garden will not normally be supported, to ensure the character of the streetscape is retained and avoid frontages of properties appearing as one large car parking area, detrimental to the appearance of the street scene and to the outlook of residents. It is important that the design of a driveway maintains a balance between hard and soft landscaping and contributes positively to the street scene. Proposals are unlikely to be supported where they do not meet the following guidelines: O the area intended for the driveway should be the minimum space necessary (see the Manual for Manx Roads); O where possible, the impact of the driveway is lessened by retaining mature trees and shrubs and/or creating areas of new planting (for example, a planted strip or hedge between the vehicular and pedestrian access can help to break-up the appearance of the hardstanding whilst planting around the fringes of the driveway can also be used to good effect and may be used to help screen the vehicle); O if an opening is made in an existing wall, fence or other boundary feature, the ends should be made good with matching or sympathetic materials (i.e. pillars);

• o where possible, separate pedestrian access should be retained/provided (existing gates should normally be retained and any new gates should not open out over the highway);
• o any new gates, walls, fences or other boundary features should reflect the traditional style of the local area;
• o consideration should be given to a strip of grass or gravel placed in the centre of the hardstanding can hide leaked oil and maintain the look of a front garden; and
• o parking spaces should be avoided directly in front of any Primary Window as the resulting outlook can be undermined by the presence of parked cars."

4.15 RDG 7 sets out key considerations regarding the impact on neighbouring properties. These include the potential loss of light/overshadowing, overbearing impact upon outlook and overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy.

- 5.0 REPRESENTATION

5.1 Onchan District Commissioners recommended refusal to the application (07/10/2021). The comment states the reason as the increased roof ridge height, and the over intensive car parking for a residential dwelling. - 5.2 District Surveyor from Onchan District Commissioners commented in relation to the inaccuracy in the existing elevations (28/09/2020). The comment states the existing flat-roof dormer is not higher than the ridge of the main roof. After the amended plan being submitted, additional comment was submitted still in concern of the same issue (23/11/2020). - 5.3 DoI Highway Services does not oppose this application (22/09/2020). The comment states the proposal does not raise significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues and there is betterment on exit lines of sight. - 5.4 Owner/Occupier of the Haven, Hillberry Road, commented in objection to this application (29/09/2020), specifically regarding the increased number of parking provision and drainage issue. The comment also states that the proposal of multiple adult occupancy differs from the typical family residence around the area, which would increase noise and highway safety risk due to the increased number of cars using the site. - 5.5 Owner/Occupier of 12 Birch Hill Grove commented in objection of this application (05/10/2020). The comment states proposed three residence will generate noise due to increased number of car use. The creation of additional parking space will prevent natural drainage. The extension to the dormer will worsen the existing overlooking. The comment also lists a number of inaccuracy believe to existing in the submitted application. The commenter then submitted an additional comment reiterate some points mentioned above (17/11/2020). - 5.6 Owner/Occupier of 12(A) Birch Hill Grove commented in objection of this application (07/06/2020). The comment states that increase in the size of the dwelling could lead to overshadowing. The height of the dormer is higher than the ridge of the main roof, and the size of the dormer is disproportionate compare to the size of the dwelling, and it increase the level of overlooking. There is the potential over-development by include a second kitchen and a self-contained unit in the dormer. Increased traffic could compromise pedestrian and highway safety. Increased harden surface will result in surface water overrun. The commenter the submitted an additional comment reiterate some pointed mentioned above (17/11/2020). - 5.7 All three properties above also raised concerns regarding the purpose of the proposed work. As the applicant operates a kindergarten next to the site, the commenters all think the proposed 8 parking spaces is designed for and will be shared with the kindergarten. - 5.8 Both 12 and 12(A) Birch Hill Grove raised concern regarding the house being a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) due to the purposed utility room on the first floor and the shower in the dormer. - 5.9 The agent has send in a response to comments received above (26/10/2020). The comment states that the dormer, although bigger in size, has smaller windows, and therefore should reduce the existing level of overlooking. The hard surface will use permeable material to reduce the amount of surface water generated by the creation of additional hard surface. The proposal has a potential future occupier in mind, a family of eight with five adults, and the parking spaces are tailored to their needs. Design choices has been taken to soften the borders and retain mature trees. Lastly, amended plans has been submitted address the blue line and dormer windows and the statement has been updated.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main consideration of this development are four folds: its impact on the visual amenities of the house itself and on the character and street scene of the area, on the parking

• and highway safety and on the living amenities of the neighbouring properties. This application has many proposals.
• 6.2 For the clarity of the report, this section will start with an assessment on the principle of the development, it will then assess each part of the proposals separately and a summary will be given in the end. Purpose and Principle of the Development
• 6.3 A key objection raised is the purpose of the proposal of the development and whether they are acceptable. The existing use of the site is a dwelling (Class 3.3) and the proposed use is also a dwelling. In the main time, objections think that the proposal could be used as a kindergarten (Class 4.2) or as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) (Class 3.5) or could include a self-contained flat (Class 3.4).
• 6.4 When assessing a planning application, hard evidence should be used as much as possible while conjectures should be avoided. For this application, the proposed floor plan is a solid piece of evidence that shows the proposed layout is still reasonable as a dwelling. There is no indication that nursery or education activities are being prioritised or could be priorities over its residential function. Therefore, this assessment will not consider the potentiality that the dwelling could be used as a kindergarten.
• 6.5 It is important to point out at this point that internal alterations alone for this house is not considered as development according to section 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act

1. Therefore, this plan is not a guarantee of residential use unless a condition is put onto the application restricting the floor plan to be carried out exactly as submitted. However, such condition is very uncommon for residential applications. Nonetheless, even if the site were to be used as a kindergarten while following the proposed floor plan, the factual change of use will still mean an application should be put in to seek planning approval before the change of use actually taking place.

6.6 Although the dwelling will be considered residential, the proposed parking provision is unusually large compare to its surroundings so its principle and use will be discussed separately in section. - 6.7 In terms of being used as a HMO, according to the HMO Definition Order, the premise of being a HMO is to have a dwelling or a flat being occupied by more than one family. In other words, a typical dwelling or flat can be used as HMO without major internal modifications. The proposed floor plan is a typical dwelling and there is no mention in the application form nor the planning statement that the dwelling will be used as a HOM. Therefore, this assessment will not consider the potentiality that the dwelling could be used as a HMO. - 6.8 In terms of the comment that the dormer could be used as a self-contained flat, there is no individual access to the dormer so it is considered that the dormer is a part of the dwelling and is a not a self-contained flat. - 6.9 As the existing use is residential, the local plan designates the site for residential use and the proposal is for a dwelling. Therefore, it is considered that the principle of the development is acceptable. External Elevation Changes (excluding the roof and dormer extension) - 6.10 The use of uPVC fasica, soffit and bargeboards and the installation of a glass balustrade is unusual within the area. The area was built around 1950s, when architectures on the island is more of a modern character, while the mass use of glass and uPVC is more typical in contemporary buildings. However, it is considered that the replacement uPVC parts and glass

panes will have a neutral impact on the character and street scene of the area and are, therefore, acceptable.

6.10 The replacement of a rear extension's window with a double door is considered to have a neutral impact on the character and street scene of the area. There is also no impact on neighbouring amenities. Therefore, it is considered acceptable. Roof and Dormer Extension

6.12 The conversion of a hipped roof to a pitched roof is mainly to enable the proposed extension to the flat-roof dormer. Hipped roofs, by creating two additional sloped surface comparing to pitched roofs, reduce massing of the roof as well as its portion comparing with the size of the main dwelling. A conversion to pitched roof would disrupt this balance in ratio and make the dwelling out of character comparing to the surrounding houses. The removal of existing vegetation around the front boundary would also make this conversion more visible to the public. - 6.13 The proposed dormer has parts higher than the ridge of the main roof, which is against the RDG regarding extensions should be lower than the ridge of the main roof and the dormer should be secondary to the roof and not a dominate feature. Even though being at the rear elevation and is not readily visible by the public at the front elevation, it is still visible to its surrounding neighbouring, making the negative visual impact unacceptable. - 6.14 Regarding neighbouring amenities, with only 14 metres to the closeted neighbouring property, and being a two storey building, a certain level of overlooking is expected. However, the proposed dormer is basically on a higher storey, and the additional overlooking created is beyond reasonable. The neighbouring properties, given the close location, have planted their backyards in an effort to reduce the amount of overlooking created by this location. This proposal would defeat these effort and increase the intensity of overlooking. In addition, although the total area of windows maybe decreasing, the conversion of the space into a bedroom would increase the duration of stay in the room for the residents of the house and therefore increase the possible duration of the neighbours being overlooked. Therefore considered unacceptable. Parking, Garden and Boundary Treatment - 6.15 The parking standard for this site is two off-street spaces, which has already been met with the existing harden surface/driveway regardless of the use of the garage. The proposal includes provision of an additional six parking spaces, which lead to a net 300% increase in the number of parking spaces available on the site. - 6.16 Such large areas for parking is unusual for dwellings of similar size, which leads to the concern of overdevelopment. The floor plan shows there are four bedrooms proposed (including one in the dormer). The agent argues the possibility of five or more cars being owned when a large family residing in this property and extra spaces are also required for visitors parking and safe manoeuvring space, hence the drastic increase in harden surface. - 6.17 The RDG protects front garden against unreasonable hardening of surface as it creates an important physical boundary, helps define the character of the area and improves street. The RDG specially states that front garden can "avoid frontages of properties appearing as one large car parking area". With this proposal, the removal of vegetation will lead to exactly this situation. Although a few trees will be retained, they could also be removed in the future in concerns of manoeuvring safety or in order to avoid birds from damaging nearby parked cars. - 6.18 This Island is still very dependent on car travel but agendas and plans have been put in place to reduce car dependency as well as promote active travel. The location of the site is close to bus stops and therefore such travel methods should be used whenever possible.

• Therefore, it is considered that there is not a justification for 6 additional parking spaces and the negative impact on the character of the area and the street scene is not acceptable.
• 6.19 In summary, a majority of the proposal creates negative impact on the visual or living amenities of the neighbouring area and is therefore considered unacceptable.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 The proposal is considered to fail comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and Residential Design Guide Section 3, 4, 6 and 7. Therefore, it is recommended for an refusal. - 8.0 INTEREST PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land which the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material. 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 above 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 and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 20.05.2021 Determining officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer 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.