Loading document...
1.1 The application site represents the curtilage of 4 Mount View Terrace, Onchan which from the front elevation appears as a two storey mid terraced property located on the southern side of Mount View Road and west of Avondale Road.
1.2 Due to the topography of the area an under croft exists below the ground floor of the dwelling. Consequently, when viewing the property from the rear lane, it appears storeys in height. Due to this level difference, when exiting the rear kitchen door a person would access onto a raise patio area which floor level is set 2.3 metres above the ground level of the rear yard. Currently this patio area projects 3.4 metres from the rear elevation of the dwelling, albeit due to an existing rear lean-to outlet (bathroom), does not extend to the full width of the dwelling.
2.1 The application seeks approval for erection of a three storey extension to rear elevation of dwelling, replacing the existing rear single storey lean-to outlet and the rear raised patio area. The proposal would have a rear projection of 3.3 metres, a width of 4.2 metres and a ridge height of 8.2 metres (eaves 6.7m). Furthermore it is proposed to erect a raise patio area which project 1.8 metres form the proposed real elevation of the extension with a total width of 4.5 metres and a floor level of 2.5 metres above the ground level of the yard area.
3.1 The previous planning applications are considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application: Installation of uPVC casement windows to replace existing on front and rear elevations - 06/01989/B – APPROVED Alterations and extension to reposition kitchen and form bathroom - 87/04616/B – APPROVED Extension to dwelling to form additional living accommodation and garage - 84/01282/B – APPROVED
4.1 The application site is within an area zoned as "Predominantly Residential Use" identified on the Onchan Local Plan 2000. It is therefore appropriate to consider Planning Circular 1/98 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007).
4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains one policy that is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. General Policy 2 states:
"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:
5.1 Onchan Commissioners recommend the application be refused on the following grounds:
"The proposals are over intensive and do not respect the site and surroundings in terms of the scale and design. It is also likely to adversely affect the amenity of local residents.
The Commissioners are minded to consider a two storey extension to be more appropriate."
5.3 The owners/occupants of 3 Mount View Terrace, Onchan have objected to the application which can be summarised as; damage caused by proposed works; loss of light to landing window; works could disrupt the sewer system which runs across the back gardens; permission would not be given to erect scaffolding on or over our property; due to the only access via a small narrow lane building vehicles would cause us access problems; proposed extension would spoil out enjoyment of out property and would be very intrusive and out of keeping with the terrace.
5.4 The owner/occupant of 5 Mount View Terrace, Onchan has objected to the application which can be summarised as; proposed balcony would permit unrestricted view into the kitchen and bathroom windows; loss of light to rear kitchen window, rear 1st floor bedroom window and bathroom; loss of view; loss of light to rear yard; an over intensive use of the site and out of keeping with the appearance of the rest of the rear elevation of Mount View
Terrace; concerns of the works undermining the structural stability of the properties either side; and with restrictions on the use of the land and access to Nr 3 and Nr 5 there can be an issue.
6.1 Visiting the site and considering the submission and written representations, it is considered the issues with the proposal are the potential impacts upon the visual amenities of the street scene and the potential impacts upon neighbouring amenities, namely loss of light, overbearing impacts upon outlook and/or loss of privacy through overlooking.
6.2 In terms of street scene, from Mount View Road and Avondale Road the proposed works are unlikely to be apparent given the works are to the rear of the property and due to existing surrounding built development in the area. The main view of the extension would be from the rear access lane which serves the properties of Mount View terrace, Victoria Avenue and Avondale Court Shopping Centre. From this view Nr 2, 3 & 4 appear largely unchanged as originally built with rear single storey lean-to extensions providing accommodation. There are two properties (5 & 6) which have benefited from rear single storey flat roofed extensions. There is also substantial extension been undertaken to Nr 1, which has benefited from a similar rear three storey extension. The proposal would be very apparent, particularly given the height; however, it is considered given it form, proportion and design the proposal would be an acceptable form of development and would not be out of keeping with the terrace.
6.3 In terms of the potential impacts upon neighbouring properties, it is considered Nr 3 and 5 Mount View Terrace are the two properties most likely to be affected by the proposed development.
6.4 In relation to Nr 3 the extension would be located east to this property. The window most affect would by the first floor window which serves a landing window. Direct light to this window would be lost during the morning periods up to approximately noon, due to the position of the extension in relation to the Nr 3, the suns orientation (east to west) and given the size, height and rear projection of the extension. However, this window serves a landing window which is not a habitable room (i.e. kitchen/living room). Therefore whilst light would be lost it is not considered this would significant affect the residential amenities to warrant a refusal. In relation to loss of light to the rear yard of Nr 3, again it is not considered the proposal would have significant impacts given the position of the extension and the suns orientation. It is unlikely direct sun light would be lost to the rear garden area. In relation to potential overlooking into and over Nr 3, this would most likely occur from the proposed balcony. It was note when visiting the site that the existing raised balcony area already gives the potential for overlooking. However, it was noted that due to the existing rear lean-to outlet and a timber clad single storey shed which runs along the majority of the shared boundary with Nr 4, these structures help prevent overlooking over the rear garden area. It is considered that views from the proposed balcony would also be limited due to these existing structures. It should be noted that as the balcony would be located to the rear extension and further into the rear yard than the existing. Therefore there is the potential for better views of the rear elevation of Nr 3 and therefore potential to view into the rear windows. However, it is considered given the position of the proposed balcony in relation to the extension, the modest depth of the balcony, the neighbouring lean-to outlet which would screen views into the ground floor window of Nr 3 and due to the floor level of the balcony, there would be no significant overlooking into any of the rear windows of Nr 3.
6.5 In relation to the potential impacts upon Nr 5 there is concern. The property is located to the east of the site and initial concerns relates to the potential loss of light to a habitable room and also the overbearing impact upon the outlook from Nr 5. It was noticeable when visiting the site and from written objections from the owner of Nr 5, that there is an existing ground floor kitchen window which would be potential be affected by the extension. The concern relates to the proposed position, rear projection and height of the extension in relation
to this window. The proposed extension would be position approximately 1.3 metres from this window, which is the only window which provides light and outlook for the kitchen. Due to the suns orientation (east to west) and as Nr 5 is located to the east of the extension, the proposal will result in significant direct light to the kitchen of Nr 5 being lost from midday till the sun sets in the evening. Given this is a habitable room and given this is the only source of light to this window; it is considered this would have a detrimental effect upon the occupants. No loss of light to the rear garden area would result for the extension given the position of the area in relation to the extension and suns orientation. In terms of the outlook from this kitchen window, whilst in planning terms there is no right to a view, consideration needs to be taken whether the scale, massing and position of the extension results in an overbearing impact upon the views from this kitchen window and from the rear garden area. The neighbouring property has benefited from a single storey flat roofed extension, which to some extend already reduces the outlook from this window. However, there is concern that the proposed massing, height and rear projection of the extension, within 1.3 metres of this window would result in a 'tunnelling effect' and would certainly have an adverse impact upon the outlook when looking out of this kitchen window. In terms of the impact upon the rear garden area of Nr 5 it is considered the proposed extension would be very noticeable from this area, although it is not considered to be so great to warrant a refusal on this ground. Concern has been raised by the owner of Nr 5 that the proposed balcony would permit an unrestricted view into the kitchen and bathroom window. Views could be obtained from the balcony, but only when a person would stand on the balcony directly next to the boundary shared with Nr 5. However, it was noted that the existing balcony, which is directly adjacent to the kitchen window, is more likely to cause overlooking issues than the proposed balcony which the majority of views would be screened by the proposed extension. It was noted that the bathroom window which would direct face towards this balcony, albeit lower than the floor level of the balcony, had obscure glazing installed. Consequently, no significant overlooking into the bathroom would occur. Overall, whilst some overlooking would occur, mostly likely to the rear garden area of Nr 5, it is consider given there already existing a balcony area, which gives raise to higher levels of overlooking than the proposal, it is considered the proposed balcony would in fact be an improvement to the amenities of the neighbouring property and therefore be acceptable.
7.1 Overall, it is considered the proposal would be contrary to General Policy 2 (paragraph g) of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan given the proposed extension would affect adversely the amenity of local residents therefore it is recommended that the application be refused.
8.1 It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d) and should be afforded interested party status:
Onchan Commissioners The owner/occupant of 5 Mount View Terrace, Onchan The owners/occupants of 3 Mount View Terrace, Onchan
8.2 The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Refused
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
The proposed rear extension, by virtue of its proximity, height, and length, would result in unacceptable impacts upon the residential amenity of adjacent property Nr 5 Mount View Terrace by causing loss of light and adversely affecting outlook from the ground floor kitchen window and therefore would be an un-neighbourly development contrary to General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Refused Date : ...
Signed : ... Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer
Signed : ... Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control
Signed : ... Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown