Officer Report Duplicate

• Loss of light on rear garden - Overlooking would result in loss of privacy - Proposal would not be in-keeping with the area - The dwellings would appear too close together ## Assessment Given the nature of the proposed development it is therefore appropriate to assess the impact it would have upon the existing property, the neighbouring properties and thysurrounding area in general. The design of the proposed rear extension would not be in-keeping with the character of the existing dwelling as the proposal would introduce a flat roof extension which would appear alien to the existing property. As a result, the side and rear elevations do not represent a continuation of the existing form or general design of the dwellinghouse, due to its elongated and rather objectionable appearance. It is acknowledged that even though the development is sited to the rear and the majority of which would not be readily viewed from Meadow Crescent (to the front elevation) or Ashbourne Avenue (to the rear); development should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island (whether it can be viewed from the public thoroughfare or not) and it is considered that in this case the proposed extension fails to address this requirement. It is considered that 1 and 3 Horseshoe Avenue would be the properties most affected by the proposed extension, due to their proximity. In terms of 1 Horseshoe Avenue it is viewed that as the proposal would not encroach further to the neighbouring property; as it would not increase in height beyond the existing ridge line and with obscure glazing on the side elevation; the residential amenity of the neighbouring property of 1 Horseshoe Avenue would not be adversely affected by the proposal. In terms of 3 Horseshoe Avenue, it is judged that there would be minimal loss of light to the rear garden and it would be unjust to warrant a refusal on this basis. The distance between the rear elevations of the application site and 3 Horseshoe Avenue is approximately 12.5 m which is appropriate. Due to the current orientation of the properties, the introduction of the first floor rear window would primarily overlook the car park area at the rear of the application site and not the rear yard of 3 Horseshoe Avenue. It is acknowledged that there would be a limited degree of overlooking onto part of the rear yard of 3 Horseshoe Avenue (although at an acute angle); however, there is existing levels of overlooking due to the layout of the surrounding dwellings and it is considered on that on balance that the private of public residential amenity of the neighbouring properties would not be unduly affected by the proposed application as to warrant a refusal of the application. The concerns which have been raised regarding the proposed extension decreasing the gap between the dwellings and would provide less open air space and make the properties too close to each other, do not hold enough substance as to merit a refusal. It is considered that the 3700 mm (W) (L) ground floor rear extension would result in a minor encroachment towards the neighbouring properties. The gap between the application site and the nearest neighbouring property of 1 Horseshoe Avenue is 8 m which is significant separation and not too close or overbearing. The proposed development would not be readily viewed from the public thoroughfares of Meadow Crescent, Horseshoe Avenue and Ashbourne Avenue due to the orientation of the properties and due to the boundary treatment which borders the site. As it has been stated earlier in the report, Strategic Policy 5 states that new development, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island and the proposed design does not achieve this. As such, the character and visual amenities of the surrounding area would be adversely affected as a result of the proposed development. ## Recommendation For these reasons stated above, the proposal is considered unacceptable and it is recommended that the planning application be refused. ## Party Status It is considered that the following parties, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded Interested Party Status: - Douglas Corporation - The Department of Transport Highways Division - The owners and/or occupiers of 3 Horseshoe Avenue, Douglas ### Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 17.03.2010

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

• C: Conditions for approval
• N: Notes attached to conditions
• R: Reasons for refusal
• O: Notes attached to refusals

R 1.

The proposed development would be contrary to General Policy 2 (parts b, c, and g), Strategic Policy 5 and Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 by reason of its design and its adverse impact on the locality. The proposed extension would introduce a flat which would appear alien to the existing property and would have a detrimental impact on character and visual amenities of the surrounding area.

I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular No 10/09, Delegation of Functions (Development Procedure), GC No 11/09 (Advertisements) and GC No 12/09 (Registered Buildings) all to the Senior Planning Officer

Decision Made: Refused Date: 2013/10 Signed: __________________________ Senior Planning Officer