DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 19/00315/B Applicant: Mr Steven Hawley & Miss Jade Downey Proposal: Alterations and installation of a rear dormer window Site Address: 21 Linden Gardens Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 6AB Planning Officer: Mr Nick Salt Photo Taken: 16.04.2019 Site Visit: 16.04.2019 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 29.04.2019 _________________________________________________________________

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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped as received on 19th March 2019:

• o P/10-00 Existing plans, section and elevations
• o P/10-01 Proposed Plans, Section and Elevations
• o P/10-03 Site and Location Plan

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 SITE - 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of 21 Linden Gardens, Douglas. The site dwelling is the end terrace in a row of modern terraced 2 storey dwellings close to Victoria Road. The dwellings are stepped, with No.21 having a lower roof ridge than adjoining properties. The properties share communal car parking spaces to the front and rear. - 1.2 These dwellings feature pitched roofs on the 2 storey ones and hipped roofs on the larger 3 storey properties. A number of the dwellings feature flat roof dormers to the rear.

2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the installation of a flat roofed dormer on the rear, with fibre cement cladding on the cheeks, uPVC windows and guttering, and wood effect fibre cement weatherboarding on the face. Additionally, a roof light is proposed although this would be permissible under the Permitted Development Order as there is only one, and it would not exceed 1m2. - 2.2 The roof of the dormer would sit approximately 100mm below the roof ridge of the main dwelling, and is set up above the eaves, 200-300mm from both the gable eaves and the adjoining property.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 A number of similar dormer extensions have been permitted in Linden Gardens:

• o 08/00877/B - Alterations and creation of dormer window - 21 Linden Gardens
• o 08/00878/B - Alterations and creation of dormer window - 39 Linden Gardens
• o 12/01317/B - Installation of a dormer window to rear elevation of dwelling - 25 Linden Gardens
• o 13/00368/B - Installation of a dormer window to dwelling - 26 Linden Gardens
• o 15/00562/B - Installation of dormer to rear elevation - 31 Linden Gardens
• o 18/01099/B - Installation of flat roof dormer to rear elevation - 36 Linden Gardens

3.2 A similar application has also been refused:

• 12/01046/B - Installation of a dormer window to rear elevation of dwelling - 25 Linden Gardens

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The proposal site is situated in an area zoned as Residential in the Douglas Local Plan (Map 3 - North). - 4.2 Due to the land use designation, General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 applies (in part). "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;

• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;"

4.3 It is also important to have regard to Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan: "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."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Douglas Borough Council have no objection (12.04.19). - 5.2 DoI Highways have stated that there is no Highways interest in the application (11.04.19).

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 In considering an extension such as this in a residential area, it important to have specific regard to potential impacts on neighbours and their amenity, and the appearance of both the site itself and the street scene or character of the area. - 6.2 Impact on Neighbours

• 6.2.1 The key considerations in terms of impact on neighbours are risks of overshadowing and/or overlooking and loss of privacy to dwellings within 20 metres. This is set out in detail in the Planning Directorate's recently published Residential Design Guidance (March 2019). Where new window apertures would have view onto or into neighbouring habitable windows or gardens within 20m (depending on topography), the risk of overlooking and loss of privacy is increased. In this case, the building closest when looking from the proposed windows on the dormer would be Eastcliffe Cottage, immediately adjacent to the rear. No other properties would be within close to 20m and likely to be affected. It is considered however that the nature of the dormer height (3rd floor) in comparison to Eastcliffe Cottage would result in no mutual overlooking and view from the 3rd floor of No. 21 primarily over the neighbouring property. On a site visit to the area, the case officer noted that Eastcliffe Cottage appeared as part of the wider Healthcare service and not a private residential dwelling.

6.3 Impact on Appearance of the Dwelling and the Street Scene

• 6.3.1 The main consideration in this assessment is the appearance of the proposal and what impact, if any, it would have on the appearance of the area and the dwelling itself. Again, the Residential Design Guidance is reffered to, which states:

"Flat roofed dormers can appear as clumsy additions to a roof pitch if they are overly long or tall, or if they are as tall as the ridge. Therefore they are only generally appropriate on more modern properties (1960/70's bungalows) and/or properties where the area is characterised by houses with flat roofed dormers. Finishing the front and cheeks of the dormers in a tile or tile like material can reduce this impact.

The position within the roof plane, size and proportion are also important aspects to consider. The size of any dormer should be secondary to the size of the roof in which it will be positioned. Therefore, dormers that would be as wide as the house and run flush or close to the elevations/roof ridge of the house will not normally be supported."

• 6.3.2 With regard to the dwelling, it is of no particular architectural merit and of a simple modern design. Some of the Linden Gardens properties are 3 storeys in height, No.21 sits lower than the adjoining dwellings. The rear dormer would therefore not appear as an intrusive or unacceptably tall alteration to the building. It must also be considered that there are a number of similar dormer windows on the rear of properties in Linden Gardens. This proposal must of course be assessed on its own merits, however, an additional rear fat roofed dormer, whilst unacceptable in many areas of Douglas, would not be regarded as an unacceptable addition in this case. Part of the reason for this is that the dormer would not be highly visible from public thoroughfares such as Victoria Road and Victoria Avenue. The use of weatherboard cladding on the face, and the positioning set back from the eaves and slightly below the roof ridge, would ensure a secondary appearance.
• 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 In summary, the proposal would not harm the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and is, on balance, considered to be acceptable in terms of the character of the area and street scene in accordance with IOMSP GP2. The application is recommended for approval. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
• (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 30.04.2019 Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

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.