Loading document...
Application No.: 20/01448/B Applicant: Mr Christopher & Mrs Laura Walker Proposal: Alterations and erection of a single storey extension to rear elevation Site Address: 18 Westminster Terrace Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 4EE Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken: 02.02.2021 Site Visit: 02.02.2021 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 08.02.2021 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. This application is considered to fail to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide due to the length of the proposed extension and its height in relation to the outlook from the rear windows in number 19, Westminster Terrace.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
None _____________________________________________________________________________
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 18 Westminster Terrace, Douglas, a two-storey mid-terrace dwelling located on the south of Westminster Terrace. The house has three existing mono-pitched extensions on the rear of the property: a two-storey one on the rear elevation of the main dwelling and the boundary with No.17; a single-storey extension on the rear elevation of the two-storey extension and a slim lean-to extension on the side of the mono-pitched extension of No. 17. The first two extensions are both half the width of the main dwelling. The lean-to only projects approx. 1/6 of the width of the main dwelling.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposed work is the demolition of the single-storey extension and the lean-to extension and the erection of an L-shaped single-storey rear extension in replacement. This extension will surround the existing two-storey extension. It will have a flat roof with two rooflights. The width of the extension is the full width of the main dwelling. There are no windows on both side elevations. There is a sliding door on the rear elevation of the extension.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There is no previous application considered materially relevant to this application. - 3.2 Not materially related to this application, 22 And 23 Westminster Terrace, which has a similar layout comparing to 18 and 19 Westminster Terrace, received approved for rear extensions to fully enclose the rear elevation under PA 07/01644/B and No 22 received a previous approval for a rear extension under PA 07/00696/B.
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 site is within the Selborne Drive Conservation Area. - 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:
4.4 Environmental Policy 35 states: "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." - 4.5 "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." - 4.6 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. - 4.7 RDG 4.2 Single Storey Rear Extension sets out some key considerations. These include the impact on the amenities of those in neighbouring properties such as loss of light and/or overbearing. These impacts can be regulated by designing with the right depth (projection) and location. The section also specifically mentioned that terraced/semi-detached dwellings have the potential for the greatest concern due to the potential of "tunnel effect". It also points out that single-storey extensions are unlikely to be supported where they project more than 3 metres from the back of the house - 4.8 RDG 5 sets out key considerations regarding architectural details. These include window details and external finishing. The general idea is that development should fit in with the street scene and the building itself.
4.9 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 Douglas Borough Council has no objection on this application (23/12/2020). - 5.2 DoI Highway Services states there is no highway interest in this application (24/12/2020).
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The main concerns for this application are its impact on the design of the house itself, on the character and appearance of the area and the amenities of the neighbours. - 6.2 The single-storey extension is on the south side of the property. It has a contemporary design compared to the existing main dwelling due to its flat roof and the sliding door. They do not preserve nor enhance the character of the Conservation Area. However, since the extension is only visible from the alley at the rear of the property, which is only used by the neighbouring properties, and the main character of the Conservation Area is defined by the front elevation rather than the side and rear elevations, the flat roof and the sliding door design are considered acceptable. - 6.3 The extension is single storey and the site is aligning east-west with the neighbouring property to the west. There is no window on either side of the extension. Therefore, there is no concern for overlooking the neighbouring properties. - 6.4 In terms of other neighbouring amenities, the initial design of half-width extensions on the opposite side for No. 18 and No. 19 was to ensure sufficient lighting for the rear elevation window on the main dwelling for both properties. This assumption can also be supported by the height of the existing/original fences as they are lower than the 2m height for typical terraces. - 6.5 For No.19, the window on the rear elevation of the main dwelling on the ground floor is for a living room. Therefore, this window is considered as a primary window according to 7.2.2 of the RDG, meaning the impact on these windows has a significant effect on residential amenities. The rear elevation of the main dwelling for No. 19 is exposed for approx. 2.7m. The existing extension of No. 19 is around 4.7m, with the proposed extension being 6.7m. A conclusion can easily be reached that the "tunnelling effect" will take place after the extension is built. This will negatively impact the outlook No.19 as well as creating an overbearing effect and is considered not acceptable for a primary window.
6.4 Although as the applicant pointed out, 22 And 23 Westminster Terrace received approved for rear extensions to fully enclose the rear elevation under PA 07/01644/B and No. 22 received a previous approval for a rear extension under PA 07/00696/B. The application was approved before the publication of the Residential Design Guide and is therefore not comparable as more detailed assessments have been set out by the RDG. - 7.0 CONCLUSION
7.1 The proposal is considered to fail to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and Residential Design Guide Section 4 and 7. Therefore, it is recommended for refusal. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
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: 09.02.2021 Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Principal Planner
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
