Loading document...
Application No.: 24/91039/B Applicant: Ms Patricia Ingram Proposal: Demolition of existing single storey extension and erection of a 2-storey extension to the rear of the property Site Address: 15 Hatfield Grove Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 3HE Planning Officer: Graham Northern Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 01.11.2024 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The proposed two-storey rear extension would result in an overshadowing and overbearing impact on neighbouring properties to the detriment of their amenity. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to comply with General Policy 2 (g) of the Strategic Plan and Section 6 of the Residential Design Guide. ## _______________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highways - no interest Douglas Council - Made comments considered to be resolved in the application details Registered Building Officer - made no comments It is recommended that the following addresses: 17 Hatfield Grove, Douglas 13 Hatfield Grove, Douglas Are allowed to take part in any appeal proceedings. ___________________________________________________________________
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is 15 Hatfield Grove, Douglas, a mid-terrace house located on the south of Hatfield Grove. There is a mono-pitched-roof extension on the rear elevation.
1.2 Almost every house south of Hatfield Gove has a single-storey rear extension, except No. 19, which has a two-storey rear extension.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposed is the erection of a pitched-roof two-storey rear extension in replacement of the existing single-storey rear extension. - 2.2 The ground floor part would project 4.368 metres and have a width of 2.936 metres and create a kitchen. - 2.3 The first floor element would project 1.95 metres and have the same width 2,936 metres and create a bathroom. - 2.4 The submitted plans show the two storey extension would breach the 45 degree angle from the centre of the master bedroom next door.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There is one previous planning application which is very relevant in the determination of this application: - 3.2 Demolition of single-storey extension and erection of rear two-storey extension which was refused under application reference 24/00522/B and is the subject of an appeal.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY Site Specific - 4.1 The site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East. - 4.2 The site is within the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area. Strategic Policy - 4.3 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 has the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
4.4 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man is the only adopted PPS at the moment. It provides supplementary policy on developments within any conservation area. Legislation - 4.5 Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) states, "(4) Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act". This sets out the approach to be taken in determining planning applications, which includes giving great weight to the asset's conservation when considering the impact of a proposed development on the asset. Given that the site is within a Conservation Area, the above requirements apply and appropriate consideration will be given in section 7. Strategy and Guidance - 4.6 The Residential Design Guide (July 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
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 The following representations can be found in full online, below is a short summery; - 5.2 LOCAL AUTHORITY
5.2 DoI Highway Services does not oppose this application (17.05.2024). The comment states there is no significant negative impact on highway safety, network functionality and/or parking. - 6.3 Four neighbouring properties were notified, and two public comments have been received) from the owners/occupiers of the following property:
6.4 The material planning considerations raised by the comments are:
6.6 Owners/Occupiers of 19 Hatfield Road confirmed that the two-storey rear extension did not receive planning approval, in their comments to the previous application. - 7.0 ASSESSMENT Conservation Areas Statutory Test
7.1 Before assessing elements of the proposal, as it is within a Conservation Area, a test should be applied to this proposal as mentioned in 5.1. This is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area.
7.2 The rear extension has a ridge lower than the ridge of the main house. Its appearance is typical for a rear extension to a Victoria terrace so it is considered that the proposal preserves the character of the Area and passes the test.
Elements of Assessment
7.3 The key considerations of this application are its impact on the house itself, on the character and street scene of the area, the amenities of the neighbours and on parking. Design of the House Itself - 7.4 The proposed extension is two-storey, but its roof ridge is lower than that of the main roof and its width is only about two-thirds that of the main house. Therefore, the proposed two-storey extension is still considered to be subordinate to the main house. Character and Streetscene - 7.5 The proposal is not readily visible from the main street scene, so it is considered to have no impact on the streetscene of the area. - 7.6 As mentioned in 7.2, the proposal is considered to have no negative impact on the character of the Area Neighbouring Amenities - 7.7 The terrace row has narrow plots. Each house and its existing rear boundary wall as well as its respective single-storey extension has an overshadowing and overbearing impact on neighbouring properties. Therefore, only the additional impact from the first storey of the proposal will be assessed. - 7.8 No.17 abuts the proposed extension. The owners/occupiers have stated the opening on the rear elevation serves a kitchen/dining area, which makes the opening a primary window for a primary room according to 7.2.3 of the RDG. Regardless of whether this room has a window on the front elevation or not, the increased height would fail the 45-degree rule and the overall height of approx. 5.8m right next to this opening is considered to increase the overbearing impact on No.17. - 7.9 The plans clearly show that the proposed first floor would encroach over the 45 degree line when taken from No 17s master bedroom. The impact at ground floor Dining room would be even greater and the small yard area to the rear would be cast in additional shadow by the proposals, which would also create an oppressive means of enclosure. - 7.10 No.13 abut the site but not immediately to the proposed extension. The proposed first floor part of the extension only project 1.95 metres and an existing ground floor extension of the same length is already in place. Therefore, it is considered that there is no overbearing impact on No.13. - 7.11 The proposal passes the 45-degree rule with No.19 so it is considered to have no overbearing impact on No.19. - 7.12 The proposed extension would impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property No 17 in terms of both ground and first floor windows and would also result in an oppressive means of enclosure that would detract from the enjoyment of the rear yard area. Therefore, it is considered that the additional overshadowing impact is not acceptable.
7.12 There is no window on the first floor so there is no additional overlooking impact. Other Matters - 7.13 Douglas Council have made comments relating to bin storage and this is noted and there is considered sufficient space to the rear for bins to be stored.
8.1 The proposed two-storey rear extension would result in an overshadowing and overbearing impact on neighbouring properties to the detriment of their amenity. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to comply with General Policy 2 (g) of the Strategic Plan and Section 6 of the Residential Design Guide and is recommended for a refusal. - 9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE
9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted). - 9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:
9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. - 9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):
9.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given the Right to Appeal. _____________________________________________________________________
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 and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 01.11.2024 Determining Officer
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner
Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the officecopy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/ customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown