DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 21/00166/B Applicant: Mrs Diana Turpin Proposal: Erection of a first floor extension over the existing garage and installation of replacement garage doors Site Address: 57 All Saints Park Lonan Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7LD Planning Officer: Mrs Vanessa Porter Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 02.06.2021 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and therefore acceptable.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped received on 19th February 2021: o Drawing No. 100 Rev A

This decision also related to the proposed general arrangement, drawing No. 101 Rev A received on the 22nd April 2021 _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

It is considered that the following Government Department should be afforded Interested Person Status as they have raised material consideration in their representations in accordance with Article 4(2):

DOI Flood Risk Management Division

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

59 All Saints Park, Lonan, as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 57 All Saints Park, Lonan which is a two storey dwelling situated to the northern side of All Saints Park. The property is situated within the second cul-de-sac to the North of All Saints Park. - 1.2 The properties within this cul-de-sac and the surrounding area are a mix of houses with different design features from small terraces such as where this property is situated to semidetached, detached and bungalows. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The current planning application seeks approval to extend over the existing garage/external storage, shower room & utility room with a first floor extension. The proposed extension will measure approximately 3.05m by 7.7m with an overall height off approximately

• 7.13m. The proposed extension will have a roof light situated within each elevation.

2.2 The proposal also includes the installation of a log burning stove within the existing rear sun room. The proposed flue measures approximately 0.69m from mid-way of the roof height. - 2.3 There is also the replacement of the garage door with wooden timber double doors which will open towards the existing driveway. PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 There is one previous Planning Application which was PA20/00174/B which was for "Removal of rear doorway and creation of a doorway to side elevation" and was Permitted. - 3.2 There have also been several applications for extensions within All Saints Park which include but not exclusive to the following;

• 3.2.1 10 All Saints Park - 17/00715/B, "Two storey extension to side of property" which was Permitted.
• 3.2.2 19 All Saints Park - 09/01989/B, "Erection of a two storey extension to side elevation" which was Permitted.
• 3.2.3 26 All Saints Park - 07/00023/B, "Construction of a two storey extension to side elevation to provide additional living accommodation" which was Permitted. PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Area Plan for the East, Map 7, Laxey. The property is not within a Conservation Area or a Flood Risk Zone. - 4.2 In terms of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, paragraph 8.12.1 states, "As a general policy, in built up areas not controlled by Conservation Area or Registered Building policies, there will be a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general." With this in mind the key policy for this application is General Policy 2, which states in part, "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:

• b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;

• n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

4.3 Transport Policy 7 in conjunction with Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 is also relevant due to the removal of a car parking space within the curtilage of the dwelling. - 4.4 Due to the proposed flue, Environment Policy 22 would also be relevant which protects the environment and neighbouring properties from pollutions. - 4.5 The Residential Design Guidance 2016 is also relevant in this application of which the most relevant parts is Section 4.4 which states, "4.4 EXTENSION TO SIDE ELEVATION

• 4.4.1 This type of extension is a common extension throughout the Island as many properties are built with an attached garage which can physically accommodate being built above. Generally, the main issues relate to the potential visual appearance of the extension within the street scene and of the individual dwelling as well as the impact on the amenities of those in neighbouring property (see Chapter 7).
• 4.4.2 It is key that any side extension respects the proportion, design and form of the existing dwelling and that it appears as a subordinate to the main dwelling. A side extension should generally not project in front of the existing building or have flat roofs, a pitched roof will normally be essential to any side extension. The roof of the proposed extension should match the original in terms of pitch and shape. The ridge line should either follow or, often preferably, be lower than the original dwelling.
• 4.4.3 Whether the side extension is single or two storeys, the height and width of these side extensions should be proportionate to the size of the main dwelling. The width should be significantly less than the width of the main dwelling. The ridge height of single storey side extensions should normally be below the eaves level of a two-storey house to give clear definition between single storey and two-storey elements." REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Highway Services have considered the proposal several times and write, "After reviewing this application, Highway Services find it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network efficiency and/ or parking." (10.05.21). - 5.2 Garff Commissioners have considered the proposal and have no objections (1.04.2021).

5.3 DOI Flood Risk Management Division have considered the proposal and state, "No Flood Risk Management Interest." (1.04.21) - 5.4 The owner/occupier of No.59 All Saints Park has written in to object against the proposal for the following items;

• - Loss of sunlight/ overshadowing
• - Overbearing impact
• - Relationship between the new building, it's extension and the surrounding properties
• - Confusion over the planning application description ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are:

• - character and appearance (GP2, b,c)
• - impact on neighing amenity/ response to objection (GP2, g)
• - impact of flue (EP22) - highway issues (TP7)

- 6.2 CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE

• 6.2.1 Firstly with regards to the first floor extension over the existing external storage/wash room/utility room, as stated in part 3 of this report there are a few properties within the surrounding area which have increased their properties by a two storey extension. With this in mind the proposal here would not look out of place within its residential setting.
• 6.2.2 The proposal in terms of its form, mass and design provides a suitable extension to an existing residential property for which there is a general principle in favour of as indicated in paragraph 8.12.1 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016. The extension is considered to be modest in size and does not generate an overbearing impact on the adjacent neighbours to warrant a concern or refusal.
• 6.2.3 It is considered that the overall level of the development contained within this proposal is in keeping with the character of the property in question and the overall streetscene.

- 6.3 NEIGHBOURING AMENITY / RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

• 6.3.1 Another factor when looking at extensions such as this is whether they would create an impact on the neighbouring properties amenities, taking into account the objection received from No. 59 All Saints Park.
• 6.3.2 When looking at the potential of overbearing/loss of light to the neighbouring property it is relevant to note that the proposed extension is situated slightly lower to the main dwelling which is situated to the Eastern side of the property as such, the property itself would already provide a certain amount of overshadowing. Having also looked at a shadow calculator it can be seen that the proposed extension will increase the overall shadowing slightly to the neighbouring garden but it would not increase the overshadowing enough to impact the neighbouring property to warrant a refusal.
• 6.3.3 Whilst the proposed extension is situated close to the boundary line, it is situated away from No. 59 All Saints Park and also situated further enough away from the garden to not create an overbearing impact to the neighbouring property to warrant a refusal.
• 6.3.4 The objection from No.59 All Saints Park also states that the design of the property is not in keeping with the overall estate. During the officers site visit it could be seen that there is a lack of uniformity with the dwellings in this area and whilst they are the same type e.g. semidetached, detached, bungalow there are slight differences within the whole estate as such the

• removal of several decorative parts of the property would not impact how the overall streetscene is viewed.
• 6.3.5 Comments have also been raised with regards to the chimney stack not being shown on the drawings, after the officers site visit, contact was made with the architects who sent in revised drawings due to the chimney stack staying and the flue to the rear of the property was also added.
• 6.3.6 The objection from No.59 All Saints Park also raises issues with regards to issues which arose during the construction work of the previously approved application, these issues are a civil matter between the owners of each property and as such cannot be assessed at a planning stage.

- 6.4 IMPACT OF FLUE

• 6.4.2 When looking at the proposed flue to the rear. There was an application which was approved initially but refused on appeal following an adverse recommendation from the inspection. The application, PA18/01125/B was refused for reasons relating to the appearance of the flue and the effect of its use in terms of smell and smoke nuisance, to the immediate neighbour. The inspector accepted that that flue would only be seen by those living around the site but still considered that an adverse visual impact experienced by them would breach GP2 and the RDG. He was also concerned about the emissions from the flue, regardless of the fact that it appeared to have been installed by a registered installer and that Environmental Health had visited the site and had not experienced any smoke or smell. The flue was installed almost on the boundary of both properties and approximately 1m from the rear elevation, extending around 1m higher than the eaves of the main part of the two storey house.

• 6.3.3 What is proposed here is much further away from the neighbouring property due to its location within the roof and as the dwellings are detached and not semi-detached as at Close Cowley. The proposed flue is situated to the West elevation and approximately 10m away from the neighbouring dwelling No. 55 All Saints Park.
• 6.3.4 Discussions were held with the Head of Building Control and Standards within the Department indicate that in his view, the issue at Close Cowley was not with the location and installation of the flue which would appear to accord with the guidelines in the Building Regulations, but with the operation and it is possible that incorrect fuel was being used. There are procedures for this which would normally involve the installer returning to check the installation. Whilst in the Close Cowley case, the EHI visited the site it is clear that on their visit there was no smoke or smell nuisance. It would appear from the discussions with Building Control that there are both standards for flues and measures which can be taken through Building Control and Environmental Protection which can address issues should they arise.
• 6.3.5 As such, in the absence of any evidence that this current proposed flue will result in harm to the living conditions of those in adjacent dwellings, it is considered that the application is acceptable.

6.5 HIGHWAY ISSUES

• 6.5.1 Turning towards the driveway alterations, whilst the previous application was for the removal of the garage by creating an external store room, it is necessary to assess this part as part of this application a) due to the objection received and b) due to the proposed new doors coming out towards the driveway.

• 6.5.2 It could be seen from the officers site visit that the car parking area for No.57 All Saints Park was enough for three cars and as such whilst the proposal shows the doors to the external storage swinging out towards the driveway, if these doors were open there would still

be enough space on the driveway for two cars which would satisfy Appendix 7 and in turn Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

CONCLUSION

7.1 On balance and for the above reasons the proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and therefore acceptable. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

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 above 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 and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made: Permitted Date: 09.06.2021 Determining officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton 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.