DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 21/00306/B Applicant: Ms Theresa Barton Proposal: Alterations and erection of an extension Site Address: 25 Birch Hill Crescent Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 3HE Planning Officer: Mr Nick Salt Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 31.08.2021 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

The proposal is considered to be in accordance with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in that no unacceptable visual, residential amenity or other impacts were identified.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following plans and drawings: Location Plan 4573/P1 rev A - Proposed Plans and Elevations _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:

DOI Flood Risk Management Division

It is recommended that the following persons 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 4(2):

27 Birch Hill Crescent, Onchan as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site relates to a detached bungalow on a corner plot at Birch Hill Crescent and Hollydene Avenue. The site bounds no.27 Birch Hill Crescent to the north and 2 Hollydene Avenue to the west. - 1.2 The site does not relate to any Registered Building and is not within a Conservation Area. It is within a Predominantly Residential area as designated by the Area Plan for the East (Onchan). - 1.3 The site dwelling is of modest mid-20th century design with a render finish and pantile roof. It features an adjoining double garage to the south.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is a single storey side extension to the northern end of the dwelling. The extension would form a continuation of the pitched main roof of the dwelling, projecting a further 3.7m in width at the front elevation, with a total length of approx. 10m. A rear facing gabled element is proposed which would project beyond the existing rear elevation. - 2.2 The extension would be finished in render to match the main dwelling with roof tiles to match, along with replacement roof tiles to the whole roof. - 2.3 A gabled bay window to the front is also proposed which would be partly finished in timber boarding.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site falls within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East. As such, General Policy 2 (GP2) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan is the key policy in the consideration of this application. - 3.2 GP2 states that 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; and (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality.

3.3 DEFA's Residential Design Guidance (2019) is a material consideration. It sets out guidelines for residential extensions in terms of both appearance and avoiding negative impacts on the residential amenity of neighbours.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 No recent planning history has been identified for this site.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 DoI Highways have confirmed that there is no highways interest in the application (30.04.21), this was confirmed again following the submission of amendments (08.06.21). - 5.2 DEFA Flood Risk Management have confirmed that there is no flood risk management interest in the application (06.05.21).

5.3 Onchan District Commissioners recommend approval (17.05.21). - 5.4 27 Birch Hill Crescent objected to the initial proposal for the following reasons (16.05.21):

• - Overbearing due to proximity of development to the boundary;
• - Do not consent to scaffolding on neighbouring land;
• - Nos. 25&27 would appear semi-detached due to the separation distances remaining;
• - Potential subsidence due to level differences between the properties;

Following the submission of amended plans, no.27 were reconsulted and upheld an objection on the following (20.06.21):

• - Potential subsidence due to level differences between the properties;
• - concerned that digging foundations so close to the boundary may undermine the footpath.

5.5 25 Birch Hill Crescent (THE APPLICANT) commented on 9 July 2021 regarding the letters of objection to acknpowledge the plans have been alterered to reflect the concerns of the neighbour, and the proximitry of the extension. ". I have spoken to my architect and he has informed me that if the extension is built correctly there should be no issues with the footings to her footpath. However for peace of mind to my neighbor I am happy to remove the hedging (which is on our boundary side) of her driveway and build the wall we discussed previously."

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this planning application are the visual impact on the character and appearance of the site and wider street scene, and the amenity of the neighbours. - 6.2 Design and Appearance

• 6.2.1 The front of the dwelling is readily visible within the street scene given the site location on a corner plot. The character of the street is relatively modern and typical of a mid-late 20th century residential area, as seen elsewhere in Onchan.
• 6.2.2 The property to the north (no.27) sits higher at ground level, accounting for the natural fall of the land. As a result, the proposed extension would have an eaves height just 0.8m higher than the ground level of no.27. No.27 is angled away from the site dwelling and has a later extension to the south close to the boundary with the application site.
• 6.2.3 The extension would largely follow the existing form and height of the main dwelling with its bulk being a continuation of the bungalow to the northern boundary. The aspect to the rear would be modest and not readily visible. At the front elevation the side extension would be checked back to ensure a degree of subservience to the main dwelling. The ground level differences, and frontage angles of no.25 and no.27 would ensure that a terracing effect is avoided.
• 6.2.4 The bay window to the front would also be modest and not out of keeping with the appearance and form of the site dwelling.
• 6.2.5 Given the scale of the proposals when viewed from the road, impact on the character and appearance of the street scene is considered to be minimal. It is concluded therefore that the proposed extensions would be in accordance with GP2 of the IOMSP.

6.3 Residential Amenity

• 6.3.1 It is essential that any proposed residential extensions account for the siting and proximity of neighbouring dwellings and avoid any unacceptable impacts from overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing. This is set out in GP2 and in the Residential Design Guidance which applies 25 and 45 degree shadowing rules and the 20m overlooking rule.

• 6.3.2 Whilst there would be additional front and rear bedroom windows, these would be at ground floor level and are not considered likely to give rise to any unacceptable overlooking.
• 6.3.3 The dwelling would be brought approx. 3.7m closer to no.27 to the north. The closest aspect of no.27 is the garage however with its single non-habitable room window. The length of the extension has been reduced following initial concerns of potential overbearing raised by the occupants of no.27. Therefore, no unacceptable overshadowing or overbearing impacts are likely.
• 6.3.4 A letter of objection has been received relating to the amended and reduced proposal, noting concerns over possible subsidence and structural issues during the construction phase. The works detailed on the submitted plans relate to the erection of an extension, whilst it acknowledged that there is a level difference between the site and no.27, a separation of between 0.6 and 0.8 metres would be retained to the boundary as shown on the plans. Any unexpected landslips resulting from the construction phase would be a private/legal matter for the applicant and/or any affected neighbouring landowners. The development also requires agreement with building control, which covers foundations. No alterations to the shared boundary treatment with no.27 are proposed in the submitted plans.
• 6.3.5 Overall, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with GP2 and with the Design Guidance with regard to residential amenity.

7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 In summary, the proposal is considered to accord with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP, the guidance set out in the Residential Design Guidance, and the land use designation as per the Area Plan for the East. No adverse impact has been identified as likely with respect of the appearance of the site and surrounding area, and the residential amenity of the neighbours.

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:

• (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 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

8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot 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 : Permitted Date: 16.09.2021 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.