DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No.: 21/00462/B Applicant: Mr Christopher & Mrs Carol Baker Proposal: Alterations, erection of ground floor and first floor extension and expansion of existing driveway Site Address: 6 Park Close Glen Vine Isle Of Man IM4 4HB Planning Officer: Mr Nick Salt Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 30.07.2021 _________________________________________________________________

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, date stamped as received on 29.04.21: Location Plan 1381.1 - Existing & Proposed Plans and Elevations.

_______________________________________________________________ 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 (4(2)):

5 Park Close, Glen Vine 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 a detached two-storey dwelling in the Park Close cul-de-sac in Glen Vine. The street scene is varied with bungalows and houses of differing design and finish. The site bounds no.8 to the northwest, no.5 to the east, and nos. 8-10 Glenvine Park to the southwest. - 1.2 The dwelling features a mix of facing brick and render on a pitched roof two storey design with adjoining single storey garage. The site does not relate to any Registered Building and is not within a Conservation Area.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The current proposal is fourfold: - 2.2 Firstly, a second-floor extension above the existing single storey garage on the eastern side of the dwelling. This extension would not extend the footprint of the garage but would raise the ridge height of this element of the dwelling by 1.4 metres, set down from the main roof ridge by 1 metre. The extension would be finished externally in facing brick and roof tiles to match the existing dwelling. Velux windows are proposed to front and rear. - 2.3 Secondly, a hipped roof single storey rear extension is proposed to the western side of the rear elevation. This extension would cover approximately 18.3 square metres and project from the main rear elevation by 4.5 metres. It would have an eaves height of 2.6 metres and ridge height of 3.5 metres. - 2.4 Thirdly, a hipped roof single storey rear extension to the eastern side of the rear elevation, flush with the east side elevation and 2 metres from the boundary with 5 Park Close. This extension would cover approximately 35 square metres and project from the main rear elevation by 5.8 metres. It would have an eaves height of 2.6 metres and ridge height of 3.9 metres. - 2.5 Fourthly, an 8.5 square metre section of the front soft landscaping is to be removed to provide an additional car parking space.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site falls within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East 2020. 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 General Policy 2 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 There is no recent or relevant planning history for this site.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS (in brief, full representations can be read on line) - 5.1 Marown Parish Commissioners have no objection (20.05.21). - 5.2 One letter of objection has been received from 5 Park Close, Glen Vine (03.06.21) citing the following concerns in relation to the proposed larger single storey extension:

• - located too close to boundary
• - projects too far from the existing building line
• - excessive height
• - Overshadowing risk
• - Overlooking of patio and ground floor rooms
• - Overbearing due to scale

Further comments were received on (04.06.21) - citing further conerns and have included sun path diagram and supporting photographs regarding:

• - Visual impact of the extension - overbearing impact on outlook
• - Loss of light and overshddowing
• - Overlooking/ loss of privacy

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 impact on the amenity of the neighbours. - 6.2 Design and Appearance

• 6.2.1 The adopted DEFA Residential Design Guidance states (in 4.4.2) that 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. This reflects the general requirements set out in parts b,c&g of General Policy 2 as outlined above.
• 6.2.2 The proposed first floor extension would be the most visible alteration when the dwelling as proposed is viewed from the road. Nevertheless, given its modest height (an increase of 1.4 metres on the existing garage), matching materials, overall scale and positioning set back from the front elevation of the main dwelling, the extension would not be out of character with the site dwelling or the street scene and would have a relatively limited impact.
• 6.2.3 The rear single storey extensions would be largely screened by the dwelling itself, would be enclosed and not readily visible from public view. These extensions would materiality use and design which is modest and would be clearly subordinate to the main dwelling. There extensions would not unacceptably reduce the level of outdoor amenity space to the dwelling or result in a cramped or contrived layout.
• 6.2.4 The additional 8.5 square metres of hardstanding to the front would retain over 50 percent of the existing front garden (as per the criteria set out in the Residential Design Guidance). The scale of the additional parking would not result in an unacceptable proliferation of parking spaces to the front of the dwelling and would preserve the street scene appearance.

• 6.2.5 Overall, the visual impact of the extensions on the character and appearance of the street scene is considered to be modest. It is concluded therefore that the proposed extension would be in accordance with General Policy 2 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 The first-floor extension would introduce Velux windows only which would be at a similar level to the existing rear first floor windows. The single storey extensions would introduce ground floor level windows at the rear. No overlooking risk is therefore likely with respect to the dwellings at Glenvine Park to the southwest. The patio doors to the southeast elevation of the smaller rear extension would face the larger extension. The obscure glazed southeast side window would serve an ensuite and is not considered likely to result in any overlooking onto 5 Park Close.
• 6.3.3 The first-floor extension would be level with the building line of no.5 adjacent, the corresponding northwest side elevation of that dwelling features one ground floor window only. The additional 1.4 metre height of the roof above the garage would not unacceptably increase overshadowing or overbearing. It is noted that the objection from no.5 does not relate to the first-floor extension.
• 6.3.4 The modest 3.5 metre ridge height and 4.5 metre projection of the smaller single storey extension would ensure no adverse impacts on the amenity of the occupants of 8 Park Close to the northwest.
• 6.3.5 Regarding the larger rear extension, the potential impact on the amenity of the occupants of 5 Park Close has been considered. The extension would project behind the existing rear elevation by 5.8 metres, with a roof ridge height of 3.9 metres and eaves of 2.6 metres. The extension would be approx. 2 metres from the shared boundary between the gardens of the two dwellings. It is accepted that the extension would project further south than the rear elevation at no.5, and that some increase in shadowing is likely during late summer evening and spring evening hours as shown within the received letter of objection.
• 6.3.6 However, the test here is the level of harm to amenity. When the above shadowing guidance (6.3.1) is applied, it is not considered that a modestly scaled hipped roof single storey extension as proposed, and with suitable separation to the boundary, would result in any unacceptable loss of light into the primary rooms windows to the rear of no.5. The garden to the rear of no.5 is of a scale suitable to ensure that adequate sunlight is received due to its south-facing orientation.
• 6.3.7 Overall, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with General Policy 2 and with the Residential 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, or 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

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: 30.07.2021 Determining officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton 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.