DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 19/00183/B Applicant: Mr Julian Askew Proposal: Erection of extension to provide garage with terrace above Site Address: 3 Cooil Ushtey Port Lewaigue Ramsey Isle of Man IM7 1AQ Planning Officer: Mr Owen Gore Photo Taken: 04.04.2019 Site Visit: 04.04.2019 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 10.05.2019 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The proposed development, by virtue of its siting and the creation of the open terrace/balcony located at the first floor level would adversely affect neighbouring residential amenity of the existing dwelling at No. 2 Cooil Ushtey through direct overlooking of the rear garden/amenity area, the rear conservatory and habitable windows. The proposed dwelling is therefore contrary to part (g) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Department's published Residential Design Guidance (March 2019).

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 SITE - 1.1 The application site is a residential dwelling on a cul-de-sac off of Hibernia Maughold Road (A15). The dwellings are mostly bungalows; however due to the ground levels rising to the south, some have garages below or are built up to almost two storey height on certain elevations. - 1.2 The application dwelling is single storey to the rear (south) and two storey to the front (north). It sits on higher ground compared to that of the neighbouring dwelling to the north (No.2 Cooil Ushtey). The rear elevation of No.2 includes a conservatory and a number of windows serving habitable rooms.

2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposal is to erect a single storey, flat-roofed, front extension onto the north elevation, which will contain additional garaging; on top of this at the 'ground floor' level of the dwelling, but first floor of the proposed extension, is a large terrace/balcony area with an oak timber framed roof to cover part of the external seating area.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site is designated as follows: -

Local Area Plan - 1982 Development Plan Site Designation - 'Proposed Area of Low Density Housing in Parkland'

3.2 The following policies are particularly relevant to this proposal:-

Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 General Policy 2 (GP2) - Development within land-use zones; and paragraph 8.12.1.

3.3 The Department has recently published its Residential Design Guidance (March 2019). This document is not a Planning Policy Statement (as per Section 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999) but is capable of being an 'other material consideration' (as per Section 10(4) (d) of the Act). Section 7.0 'Impact on Neighbouring Properties' of this document contains two parts which in particular are considered to be relevant to this proposal. Parts 7.4 'Overbearing Impact upon Outlook' and 7.5 'Overlooking Resulting In a Loss of Privacy'.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 The previous planning applications are not considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only. Garff Commissioners

• o No Objection (dated 07 March 2019) Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division
• o No comments at the time of writing

6.0 ASSESSMENT Character and appearance - 6.1 The application site is within a secluded cul-de-sac in the far corner of the group of houses; the proposed extension sits away from the main highway towards the back of the site when viewed from the site access. Therefore the proposal would not unacceptably harm the characteristics of the existing building or the character of its surroundings. In this respect, the proposal complies with GP2. Impact on neighbours - 6.2 The application site and the neighbouring dwelling are orientated so that the front of the application site faces the side elevation of the neighbour at No.2 to the north; due to the width of No.2 the existing north facing window of the living room faces the rear garden of No.2. The proposal is single storey and extends off of the elevation below the living room window; however it includes a large, mostly open terrace/balcony on top of the extension, accessed from the patio doors that will replace the living room window. - 6.3 The boundary of the neighbouring dwelling at No.2 is approx. 9m from the existing front elevation of the dwelling and the existing living room window is approx. 20m away from the

• rear conservatory of the neighbouring dwelling. With the addition of the proposed extension the distance between the extension and the boundary will be reduced to approx. 3m and the extension and the neighbour's conservatory will be approx. 13m.
• 6.4 The proposal therefore creates a large open terrace/balcony that will directly overlook the rear garden, the rear elevation and conservatory of the neighbouring dwelling. There is some vegetation between the two properties; however there is a distinct gap where the living room window overlooks. Vegetation in of itself is not an acceptable mitigation for direct overlooking or loss of privacy.
• 6.5 The Department has recently published its Residential Design Guidance (March 2019). Section 7.0 'Impact on Neighbouring Properties', part 7.5 'Overlooking Resulting in a Loss of Privacy' of this document is considered to be relevant to this proposal. Paragraph 7.5.1 refers to the "20 metre guide" and states that the guide 'provides a useful way to identify where overlooking is likely to be a concern. It refers to the distance between elevations that contain windows serving habitable rooms that face each other'.
• 6.6 There would be direct harm in terms of overlooking and a loss of privacy for the neighbouring property as a result of this proposal; the terrace will allow users to stand at first floor level above the boundary fence, with an uninhibited vista type view over the neighbouring property. The creation of a terrace/balcony also creates the likely noise disturbance coming from the use of the area and the increase in the perception of overlooking from the activity.
• 6.7 This is considered to result in a level of harm that is sufficient to warrant refusal in terms of the policy provisions set out in part (g) of General Policy 2 and the Department's published Residential Design Guidance (March 2019). Parking and highway safety

6.3 On-site parking provision is adequate and complies with the standards set out in the Appendix 7 - Parking Standards. The proposal is therefore in accordance with GP2. - 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 The proposal therefore conflicts with the appropriate policies within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Department's published Residential Design Guidance (March 2019). - 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 a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 16.05.2019 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.