DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 22/00265/B Applicant: Mr Matthew Cooper Proposal: Removal of garage and erection of side and rear extensions Site Address: Thie-My-Chree Douglas Road Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1TH Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 26.04.2022 Site Visit: 26.04.2022 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 10.05.2022

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.

• C 2. The site as defined in red on the submitted plans may be used only as a single planning unit with any accommodation created by this application to be used ancillary to the main residence 'Thie-My-Chree' within the red line area and may not be sold or let separately.

Reason: the application is not described as creating a self-contained, separate unit of accommodation and has not been assessed as such.

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, and the principles set out in the Residential Design Guidance, in that no unacceptable visual, residential amenity or other impacts were identified.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the Location Plan, Site Plan, and Drawing Nos. 20088 - PL01 and 20088

• PL02, received 9 March 2022.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Thie-My-Chree, Douglas Road, Castletown which is a two storey detached dwelling which is to the north-western side of the highway. The dwelling is an attractive dwelling with a two storey projecting gable to the front with a double height projecting bay. The dwelling previously had a single storey hipped roofed garage which adjoins the side elevation of the dwelling, although this has now been demolished. The property appears to be 1920's design and construction. - 1.2 The property is one of four detached dwellings which have a similar building line and are sat in very similar sized plots. There is a large garden to the rear of the property which has its northwest boundary lined by a thick cluster of trees situated within the adjacent site also within the ownership of the applicant.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for removal of garage and erection of side and rear extensions. The single storey extension would be to the rear of the property and the two storey extension would be to the side. - 2.2 The first part of the works would involve the removal of the hipped roofed garage on the northeast elevation of the property. The garage was already demolished as at the time of visiting the site on 26 April 2022. - 2.3 Also proposed is the erection of an extension at the position of the demolished garage. This extension would be 12.6m long, 3.5m wide in front, 4m wide at the rear, and 3.7m high to the top of the ridge (4.6m where the roof joins the main dwelling and 2.2m to the eaves). The roof of the extension would have a hipped end in front and a gable end at the rear. This extension would serve a bathroom, two bedrooms and a living room with patio door access to the rear garden. The extension would be set 1.3m from the boundary with Holmcroft to the northeast. - 2.4 The works would also involve the erection of a single storey sun room extension that would project from the rear of the existing living room by 6.4m. This sunroom would be 3.6m wide and 3.6m high to its roof ridge (2.2m to the eaves). This sunroom would also have a rear patio door access to the rear garden. - 2.5 The extensions would be finished with painted render with Rosemary roof tiles. All the new windows and patio doors would be UPVC units to match the existing units on the dwelling.

- 3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South (Map 5) as Predominantly Residential. The site does not lie within a Conservation Area or area at risk of flooding nor are there any Registered trees on the site. The site is also not within a Registered Tree Area. As such, the following parts of the Strategic Plan are relevant:

3.2 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 and

• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality. (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption".

3.3 "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 existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general." - 3.4 Other policies within the Strategic Plan which are considered relevant in the assessment of the proposal are; Infrastructure Policy 5, Community Policy 11, Community Policy 7 and Community Policy 10.

- 4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Whilst not adopted planning policy, DEFA's Residential Design Guidance is a material consideration in the assessment of this application as, "It is intended to apply to any residential development within existing villages and towns, including individual houses, conversions and householder extensions". Sections 2.0 on sustainable construction, 4.7 on Flat Roof Extensions, and 7.0 which deal with impact on neighbouring properties are considered relevant to the current scheme. - 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 The previous planning application for alterations and erection of a single and two storey extension to dwelling under PA 14/01319/B is particularly relevant. This scheme proposed a single storey sunroom extension at the rear of the existing living room similar to that proposed under the current scheme, and a two storey side extension at the position of the single garage. That proposal was approved in March 2015, although the works were not implemented. - 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

6.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that there is 'No Highway Interest' in a letter dated 18 March 2022.

6.2 There has been no written representation from the Castletown Commissioners on the application, although they were consulted on 15 March 2022. - 6.3 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The key considerations in the assessment of the current application are:

• i. the impacts upon the character and appearance of the property and street scene;
• ii. the impact upon the amenities of local residents; and
• iii. impacts on parking and highway safety

7.2 Character and appearance

• 7.2.1 The proposal is large but reflects the proportion, design and finishing of the existing dwelling and the neighbouring properties on this part of Douglas Road. It has been designed to avoid extensive alterations to the front elevation of the main dwelling, with the hipped roof finish and size of the side extension providing balance and symmetry to the front elevation of the dwelling when viewed from the streetscene. The side extension would be set back from the front elevation and it would also be set down from the ridge height which would ensure it remains subordinate to the main dwelling. Additionally, the size, massing, form and fenestrations on the proposed extension would respect the character and appearance of the dwelling.
• 7.2.2 The proposed single storey sunroom extension at the rear is also considered to be in keeping with the character of the existing dwelling, since its pitch roof, Rosemary roof tiles, window type and external wall finish would ensure it fits seamlessly with the existing building. It is also noted that it would be situated within the rear garden, where it would be completely enclosed and hidden from public views.
• 7.2.3 In respect of the impact on the visual amenities of the street scene and locality as a whole, it is considered that the proposed side extension (which would be publicly viewable) will be in keeping with the street scene and the area. Whilst it is noted that the properties here all have a similar building line and are sat in very similar sized plots, the dwelling styles are still varied, with the application dwelling of a distinct style which would be reinforced by the proposal as the proposed changes would create design symmetry with the kitchen on the southern elevation. Additionally, the scheme as proposed would ensure that there would be a visual break between the dwelling and Holmcroft to the northeast, and offer an improved appearance over the previously approved two storey extension on the northern elevation of the dwelling.
• 7.2.4 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed development would comply with the provisions of General policy 2 of Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, as the proposal would not unacceptably harm the characteristics of the existing building or the character of the immediate streetscene. In this respect, the proposal complies with GP2.

7.4 Impact on neighbours

• 7.4.1 With regard to impact on the neighbouring dwellings, the dwelling most likely to be affected would be Holmcroft to the northeast, given the propose side extension would be 1.3m from its boundary and 3.3m from its southwest elevation. However, it is noted that the proposed development would be an improvement on the previously approved application in terms of its scale, massing and height, in terms of its relationship with this neighbouring property. As well, the roof of the side extension would lean away from this dwelling, ensuring that any impacts in terms of overbearing impact is diminished. The new design would further create sufficient room between these buildings, avoiding the terraced feel that could have resulted from the previous application.
• 7.4.2 Granting the side extension would be considerably long, with possibility to result in overshadowing, the boundary treatment between both dwellings which comprises a wall between 1.8m to 2m high along this boundary will ensure that any impacts on the neighbouring rear garden would be minimal. Besides the eaves of the new extension would only be about 200mm higher than this boundary wall and would be set back about 1.3m from this wall. Moreover, satellite images of the site area when the sun is east shows that the shadows cast would lie mainly on the boundary, with minimal impacts on the neighbouring rear garden. On balance, it is considered that the size, form of the proposed, and the nature of the boundary treatment eliminates any overshadowing or overbearing impacts that could result, thus making the proposal comply with GP2 (b) and (g).

7.4 Impacts on highway safety

• 7.4.1 In assessing impacts on highway safety, it is considered that the scheme does not propose any alterations to the means of access to the site or parking within the site. Whilst it is noted that the garage parking would be lost, the site still has parking allowance for a minimum of three cars within the curtilage. As such, it is not considered that there would be any impacts on highway safety.

7.5 Other Matters

• 7.5.1 No new confined spaces with easy access to those outside the site would be created, which would serve as easy hideouts for criminal activity or antisocial behaviour. Likewise, the scheme would not impede easy access to fire vehicles to the rear of the dwelling, and would create clear breaks from the neighbouring property; sufficient to prevent easy spread of fire. As such, it is considered that the scheme aligns with the requirements of Community Policies 7, 10, and 11.

• 7.5.2 The scheme would also not result in the removal of any trees on site.
• 7.5.3 No other concerns have been noted.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 The proposed development is considered to comply with paragraph 8.12.1 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and meets with the tests of the advice set out in the Residential Design Guide. The application is therefore recommended for approval. - 9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

9.1 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. 9.2 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 in Article 4(2) 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: 20.05.2022 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.