DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 22/00795/B Applicant: Mr Graham Anstey Proposal: Erection of a double storey rear extension and a single storey side extension. Site Address: 85 Cronk Grianagh Estate Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 4RR Planning Officer: Mr Toby Cowell Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 14.09.2022

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. All external facing and/or roofing materials to be used shall as part of the development hereby approved shall match those of the existing building. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

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

The proposed development is of an appropriate design, form and scale in relation to the existing property, whilst not resulting in a harmful impact upon the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties. The development would therefore comply with aforementioned planning policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, specifically those sections of General Policy 2 (b), (c) & (g) and is recommended for approval.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to drawings referenced; APL 01, APL 02, APL 03, APL 04, APL 05, APL 06, APL 07, APL 08 & APL 09, all received on 4th July 2022.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwellinghouse on the Cronk Grianagh Estate, within the settlement boundary of Strang. The property forms part of a small cul-de-sac development of 16 dwellings granted planning permission in 2007 (ref. 07/00869/B) for first-time buyers. No alterations have been undertaken to the property since construction. - 1.2 The property benefits from an east facing garden with tandem parking for 2 vehicles adjacent to the northern elevation, together with reasonable front garden provision. The existing dwelling comprises a north-facing gable end with a centrally located front facing gable spanning both the subject property and the adjoining dwelling. The property is served by a mono-pitched porch, mirroring that of the adjoining dwelling.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a 4m deep two-storey rear extension with a dual-pitched gable end and comprising a width of almost the entirety of the existing dwelling, save for a 200mm offset from the mutual boundary with No. 86. The extension would facilitate an enlarged kitchen/dining room at ground floor, whilst further enlarging bedrooms 2 and 3 at first-floor. - 2.2 The proposals further include a single storey side extension incorporating a monopitched roof, recessed approximately 5.1m from the front elevation of the lounge whilst being flush with the extended rear elevation of the resultant property. The extension would extend a total length of 8m with a width of 2.3m, and accommodate a utility room and snug. - 2.3 It appears from the submitted plans that the proposals also include the creation of a small patio area to the rear of the dwelling together with the erection of a retaining wall, with the garden sloping gently upwards to the rear. No indication has been provided on the external materials proposed for the development, however it is assumed that they would match those used for the existing property.

- 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 None. - 4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The application site is identified on the Area Plan for the East as land zoned for 'predominantly residential' purposes within the settlement boundary of Strang. The site is not within a Conservation Area or an area identified as being at risk of flooding.

4.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application; Strategic Policy

• 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages
• 3 To respect the character of our towns and villages 5 Design and visual impact

• Spatial Policy
• 4 Development in Remaining Villages

General Policy 2b,c,g General Development Considerations Environment Policy 42 Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality Infrastructure Policy

• 5 Water conservation and management

Community Policy 7 Designing out criminal and anti-social behaviour 11 Prevention for the outbreak and spread of fire

4.5 Residential Design Guide (2021) This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction. - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Braddan Commissioners - no response received at the time of writing. 5.2 Highways Services do not object (No Highways Interest) 27.07.22 - 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are as follows:

• - Principle of development (SP4)
• - Design and visual impact (SP5, GP2, EP42)
• - Impact upon neighbouring amenity (GP2, g)
• - Other matters (RDG, EP22, CP7, 11 and IP5)

- 6.2 PRINCIPLE

• 6.2.1 The site falls within the settlement boundary of Strang and an area zoned for residential development, where there is a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing properties provided such development would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general.

- 6.3 DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT

• 6.3.1 The design, scale and footprint of the proposed rear extension is considered to be in keeping with the existing dwelling, whilst comprising a proportionate footprint relative to the current dwelling and size of the rear garden. The ridge height of the extension would be set well below that of the principle section of the dwelling, therefore appearing naturally subordinate. In any case, the rear extension would not be visible in the context of the streetscene and therefore have no material impact upon the character and visual amenities of the same.

• 6.3.2 Likewise, the proposed side extension would be of a moderate scale, whilst retaining the current level of separation/spaciousness above ground-floor level between the host dwelling and the adjacent property of No. 84 to the north. The extension would assimilate well with the existing dwelling, whilst appearing clearly subordinate and unassuming within the context of the streetscene.
• 6.3.3 No details of materials have been provided however it is assumed that they would match those of the existing property. This can be sufficiently secured via condition to safeguard

• the visual amenities of the immediate locality. The properties are considered to be acceptable from a design and visual impact standpoint, in compliance with General Policy 2 (b) & (c).
• 6.4 NEIGHBOURING AMENITY

6.4.1 The proposed extension would not include any windows at ground or first-floor level in either flank elevation, thereby ensuring the privacy of adjacent neighbouring properties either side would be safeguarded. Likewise, whilst the proposed rear extension would undoubtedly have some impact upon the outlook of No. 86 to the immediate south, the development would not give rise to an increased level of overshadowing owing to its northerly placement relative to No. 86, and in any case is of a reasonably moderate footprint and scale that would not result in an excessive impact upon neighbouring amenity by way of overdominance or obtrusiveness.

• 6.4.2 With respect to the amenities of No. 84 to the north, the development is likely to only give rise to a marginal uplift in overshadowing, if any increase at all, to the respective rear garden area. This is primarily due to the retained separation distance and marginal projection past the rear building line of No. 84 owing to the staggered positioning of the two properties. The development would further not give rise to a demonstrable impact upon the amenities of No. 84 with respect to overdominance or loss of outlook. The development is therefore considered to sufficiently safeguard the amenities of surrounding properties, in compliance with General Policy 2 (g).

6.5 OTHER MATTERS

• 6.5.1 The proposed works comprise extensions to an existing dwelling, and therefore the proposals are not expected to create any changes or new issues in respect of criminal actively or spread of fire. Whilst the proposals will be increasing the overall floor space, the applicant has stated within the application form that any water run-off will be dealt with as per the existing soakaway and therefore no concerns are raised in this regard. Whilst the proposed works are increasing the floor area of the property, it is not expected that the water usage of the dwelling will materially increase, therefore there are no new issues in this respect.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 The proposed extensions are acceptable in terms of their form, mass and design by providing a suitable extensions to an existing residential property and as such comply with Strategic Policy 5, Spatial Policy 4, General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. The application is therefore recommended for approval. - 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: 15.09.2022 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.