Inspector's Report

Appeal No. AP14/0009 Application No. 13/91487/B REPORT ON AN APPEAL BY MR JASON \& MRS LYNDSEY GAINES AGAINST THE REFUSAL OF PLANNING APPROVAL FOR THE REPLACEMENT AND LIFTING OF EXISTING GARAGE ROOF TO CREATE ADDITIONAL LIVING ACCOMODATION AT 27 ASHBERRY AVENUE, DOUGLAS, ISLE OF MAN

1. I held an inquiry into this appeal on 8 April 2014 following a site visit on 7 April. The following persons appeared at the inquiry:

For the Appellants: Mr J Smith (JS Associates Ltd) For the Planning Authority: Mr E Baker

The Appeal Site And The Proposed Development

1. The appeal relates to a modern semi-detached house on the south west side of Ashberry Avenue which is a cul-de-sac on a modern housing estate. The main part of the house has 2 -storeys, with the ridge of its main roof running roughly parallel to the road frontage and terminating in a side facing gable end. Beneath the 2 -storey gable there is an attached single storey element with a garage at the front and a utility room and WC behind. This element also has a pitched on the same alignment as the main roof and terminating in a side facing gable end.
2. The site is about 125 m north west of the junction with Meadow Crescent, which forms a distributor road on the estate. The initial length of the cul-de-sac contains detached bungalows, but the north western end of the cul-de-sac which includes the appeal site comprises a mix of 2-storey detached and semi-detached houses and houses in short terraces. There is a relative uniformity to many of the design elements of these houses, including the pitched form of their roofs and the part brickwork/part rendered finish to the elevations. Although there are some examples of hipped roofs, most roofs in the cul-de-sac are gabled ended with equal angles of pitch to each side of the ridges of the roofs.
3. It is proposed to remove the existing roof over garage/utility room and WC and to create an additional room at 1st floor level. The extension would not rise to the full height of the 2 -storey part of the house. Instead there would be a front facing roof slope about 0.5 m above the height of the existing front garage roof slope, and at roughly the same angle of pitch. The new rear facing roof slope would have a reduced angle of pitch of about , so that it would terminate with eaves at a height some 0.4 m or so below the eaves height of the 2 -storey part of the house. A new window would be inserted at 1st floor level at the rear. The head of this new window would be about 0.4 m below the head of the existing rear facing 1st floor windows.

The Case For The Appellants

The main points are:

1. The statements made in the assessment in the Planning Officer's report are subjective. Uniformity has played no part in the extensions/alterations previously permitted for example at 46 and 50 Meadow Crescent, and there are other similar cases around Farmhill and Governors Hill. The extension approved and built at 46 Meadow Crescent is almost identical and looks fine (Inspector's note: it was accepted for the appellant at the inquiry that the extension at 46 Meadow Crescent is not identical to the appeal proposal as the angle of the rear roof slope is rather than ). The appellants would be happy to have the same dashed render finish to the wall plate above the garage door as has been used at that property if that is preferred from a planning perspective. A similar application has been submitted to extend another property in Ashberry Avenue but has not yet been determined.

1. The Planning Authority's comments regarding the adverse impact on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area need to be placed in context. The property to be extended is a modern house built in 1996. It is queried how much character the property has. It is not a listed building, and it is not bespoke in design or of significant architectural design. It is difficult to understand who might be subject of any adverse impact, given that the property is on a cul-de-sac with very limited traffic.
2. A restrictive covenant limits how the house and others in the area may be extended. That does not provide a reason why permission should be granted, but the proposal is arguably less intrusive than a full extension over the garage would be which the Planning Authority suggested as an alternative.
3. Inadequate substantiation and explanation has been given to justify the Planning Authority's assessment that the proposal is contrary to criteria (b) and (c) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan ("the Strategic Plan"). The reasons given for refusal are neither fair nor sufficient. The appeal should be allowed and planning approval granted.

The Case For The Planning Authority

The main points are:

1. The Area is identified as being predominantly residential by the Douglas Local Plan 1998. General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan are relevant.
2. The proposal would not affect existing parking and access arrangements. It would harm the amenity of neighbouring residents. There would be no additional harmful overlooking of neighbouring residents, and there would not be an unacceptable loss of light or impact on the outlook of those residents.
3. The alterations would result in the roof over the garage appearing hunched and unattractive. The wall plate between the garage door and the eaves would appear overly large. The junction at the eaves at the front and the rear would appear awkward and discordant. The proposal would appear even more strident and unsympathetic because the dwellings on Ashberry Avenue have a uniformity of design.
4. The Planning Authority is aware that a restrictive covenant prevents the erection of a more orthodox 2storey side extension. That is unfortunate but does not justify the unacceptable design solution proposed. The proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the dwelling and of the area. For that reason the appeal should be dismissed.

Other Representations

1. At application stage the following representations were made:

• the Director of Highways did not oppose the proposal;
• Douglas Borough Council had no objections. At appeal stage the Council has stated that it does not wish to add to its previous response.

Inspector'S Assessment And Conclusions

1. The main issue in this case concerns the effect the proposal would have on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and of the area, with particular reference to the immediate street scene.
2. The dwelling is characterised by design elements which include pitched ridged roofs with front and rear roof planes rising at equal angles of approximately , and with side facing gable ends. Although there are some roofs with hipped ends, the pattern of roof planes at similar angles is generally characteristic of the immediate street scene. Although the proposal would replicate the existing angle

of the front roof slope, the rear roof plane would fall at a much reduced angle of about 12.5°. The consequent irregular, eccentric arrangement of roof planes would create a feature which would be alien to the general uniformity of roof forms both on this dwelling and in the immediate street scene.

1. I have taken account of the examples of other alterations/extensions cited by the appellants. The extension approved at 50 Meadow Crescent was not directly comparable in that it did not incorporate the same change to the angle of the rear roof slope, but instead involved a rear facing dormer. The appellant's representative at the inquiry conceded that the scheme at 46 Meadow Crescent was not entirely the same as the appeal scheme, as the angle of the rear roof slope approved in that case was at 15°. More significantly I noted at my visit that there is a limited gap between that dwelling and its neighbouring property, which restricts the extent to which the eccentric roof form is visible within the street scene. As the front roof slope of the extension on that site rises at a comparable angle to the other roof planes nearby, it is not unduly evident that the extension incorporates a non-typical roof form at the rear. By contrast the alterations/extension proposed in the appeal would be prominent as visibility would be opened up by the relatively wide gap that exists between the appeal property and the adjacent dwelling at No. 25. A vehicular access passes through that gap, and then curves around the rear of the appeal property to give access to a car parking area. The proposed alterations/extension would be prominently visible to users of that access. Comparable opportunities to view the alterations/extension at 46 Meadow Crescent at a similar close proximity do not exist. I have concluded that the existence of an approved and constructed extension of a similar but not identical design at 46 Meadow Crescent does not set a precedent which must be followed in this appeal case. Every planning proposal is to be treated on its own merits, and for the reasons I have given the merits of the appeal scheme are different.

1. I concur with the Planning Authority's assessment that there are no grounds to refuse planning approval on grounds relating to access and car parking or impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. However, I have concluded that the proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and of the area. It would conflict in those respects with the expectations of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan that development should respect the site and surroundings, including in form and design, and should not have adverse effects on the character of the surrounding townscape and the character of the locality. Consequently, it is my further conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed. However, if a decision is made to allow the appeal, it would be necessary and reasonable to attach the 2 conditions given in the covering letter of 21 February 2014 to the Planning Authority's statement. These comprise the usual requirements that development should be commenced within 4 years and carried out in accordance with the submitted drawings.

RECOMMENDATION

1. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed, with the effect that the Planning Authority's decision to refuse planning approval be upheld.

Stephen Amos MA (Cantab) MCD MRTPI Independent Inspector

Appeal No. AP14/0009

Page 3

.