DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 21/00631/B Applicant: Mr Gareth & Mrs Gemma Roby Proposal: Alterations and erection of a 2 storey extension to side elevation Site Address: 56 Summerhill Road Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 1NF Planning Officer: Mr Nick Salt Photo Taken: 11.08.2021 Site Visit: 11.08.2021 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 13.08.2021 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The scale and design of the rear element of the extension, including the roof design and rear second floor window, would introduce an incongruous and unsympathetic element to the dwelling which would harm the appearance of the site and the overall character and appearance of the street scene when considered against the overall design in the area. In this regard, the proposal would not accord with General Policy 2 (b,c,g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. - R 2. The rear extension, by virtue of the introduction of a large habitable room second floor window facing southeast, would introduce an unacceptable level of overlooking (both perceived and actual), resulting in harm to the residential amenity of the occupants of 26 The Park through loss of privacy and direct views into the conservatory and rear garden of that property. In this respect the proposal would be contrary to General Policy 2 (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

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)):

• 26 The Park, Onchan
• 27 The Park, Onchan

as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not 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)):

29 The Park, Onchan

As it is not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the southwest end terrace of three terraced dwellings lying southeast of the Summerhill Road highway in Onchan. It has a hipped roof and short, forwardprojecting porch; both are finished in rosemary tiling, while the dwelling itself is finished in a roughcast render that is painted white. To the south west, the dwelling has an attached, flatroofed garage that continues the front building line of the dwelling. To the front is an area of hardstanding and garden area bounded from the highway by a stone wall with pillars. - 1.2 The properties of The Park are sitated to the southeast of the application site, with a pedestrian walkway between. The site dwelling adjoins no.54 to the northeast and is adjacent to no.58 to the southwest. - 1.3 The site does not relate to any Registered Building and is not within a Conservation Area.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 This application seeks planning permission for a side and rear extension to the property. The side element of the extension would add a first floor above the garage to the side. The rear part would be a redesign of the rear of the dwelling, with the small lean-to element replaced with a single storey flat roof, and the majority of the rear elevation projected out via a pitched extension over three floors. The extension to the rear of the garage would project level with the maximum extent of the existing dwelling. - 2.2 The additional floor would see a large ceiling height window to the rear elevation and second floor level, serving a proposed home office. - 2.3 Materials are proposed as slate tiling, white render and aluminium framed windows. Total footprint would increase from 90sqm to 106sqm.

- 3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site falls within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East 2020. As such, General Policy 2 (GP2) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan is the key policy in the consideration of this application. - 3.2 General Policy 2 states that 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; and (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality.

3.3 DEFA's Residential Design Guidance (2021) is a material consideration. It sets out guidelines for residential extensions in terms of both appearance and avoiding negative impacts on the residential amenity of neighbours.

- 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 There is no materially relevant planning history for this site. - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 DoI Highway Services confirmed that there is no highways interest in this application (01.07.21).

5.2 Onchan Commissioners initially requested that the application be deferred (13.07.21).

• 5.2.1 The Commissioners then recommended refusal (27.07.21) on the grounds of loss of privacy to neighbouring properties and visual harm to the street scene.

5.3 Three (3no.) letters of objection has been received from nos. 26,27 and 29 The Park, Onchan respectively. The following concerns were cited:

• - Overlooking
• - Potential increased traffic and pressure on parking
• - Potential precedent
• - Not in keeping with the appearance of surrounding properties
• - Changes the character and appearance of the property

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this planning application are the visual impact on the character and appearance of the site and wider street scene, and the amenity of the neighbours.

6.2 Design and Appearance

• 6.2.1 The adopted DEFA Residential Design Guidance states (in 4.4.2) that 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. This reflects the general requirements set out in parts b,c&g of General Policy 2 as outlined above.
• 6.2.2 The extension would alter the appearance of the site dwelling and the street scene of both Summerhill Road and Hague Drive. The key consideration in terms of visual impact is whether this would be harmful, to a degree which would render the proposal unacceptable.
• 6.2.3 From Summerhill Drive to the northwest, the extension would add a hipped roof two storey feature above an existing flat roofed garage. The use of matching pitch to the roof and materials to match would ensure that, when viewed from the front, the dwelling as extended would be sympathetic in form and design to the main dwelling. It is also noted that the adjacent dwelling features a two-storey flat roof element to the side which is not sympathetic to the street scene. Similarly, the view of the side of the dwelling would be appropriate in that the extension would not appear overly dominant or incongruous with either the site or street scene. Sufficient separation between the dwelling and no.58, and the pitched design of the roof, would prevent any unacceptable 'terracing' effect.
• 6.2.4 When viewed from Hague Drive to the northeast, there are clear views of the rear of nos. 52-56 Summerhill Road, and they form part of the street scene. There is a good degree of uniformity at present, with some previous modifications all being below the existing two storey eaves height and respecting the pitched roof design and traditional appearance of the dwellings.
• 6.2.5 The rear-facing second floor element including the proposed large window would introduce a dominant visual feature that would significantly contrast with the adjoining and

adjacent dwellings and the site dwelling itself in that the eaves height would be well above the existing. When viewed from the rear and side, including from Hague Drive, the rear part of the extension would ensure that no.56 appears as a three-storey dwelling. The scale and design of the rear element of the extension would introduce an incongruous and unsympathetic element to the dwelling which would harm the appearance of the site and wider area when considered against the overall design in the area.

6.3 Residential Amenity

• 6.3.1 It is essential that any proposed residential extensions account for the siting and proximity of neighbouring dwellings and avoid any unacceptable impacts from overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing. This is set out in GP2 and in the Residential Design Guidance which applies 25- and 45-degree shadowing rules and the 20m overlooking rule. The design guidance also states that each proposal should pay particular attention to poor outlook for and overlooking of the neighbouring property. The DEFA Residential Design Guide states that the required 20 metre distance may need to be greater, if there is a change in topography, which would result in an adverse effect on the privacy and amenity of a neighbouring property.
• 6.3.2 No.58 to the southwest feature a two-storey side extension which projects to approximately the same distance as the proposed side/rear extension on no.56. It is not considered therefore that any unacceptable overshadowing or overbearing would result on no.58. Similarly, the proposed rear element of the extension would retain a single storey element closest to the common boundary with no.54, which would prevent any unacceptable levels of shadowing or overbearing resulting from the extension.
• 6.3.3 Objections have raised concerns primarily over loss of privacy to The Park dwellings to the rear (southeast). The only dwelling directly behind the site is no.26, which is a detached bungalow sited lower at ground level than the application site. The other dwellings sit further to the west and not in a direct line of sight from the rear of no.56. The rear elevation of no.26 would be slightly over the 20-metre limit cited by the residential design guide, which helps to prevent any existing overlooking resulting from the first-floor rear bathroom and bedroom windows on the site dwelling and the adjacent dwellings. Current levels of privacy to the rear garden of no.26 are also achieved by a tall hedgerow to its rear boundary.
• 6.3.4 The large ceiling height window proposed to serve the office would provide clear views from a primary habitable room window to the southeast - including the rear of no.26. Despite the separation distance of over 20 metres, the impact of perceived and actual overlooking from this second-floor window into and onto no.26 is likely to be severe due to the dwelling and ground level height differences, with the neighbouring property being a bungalow with conservatory to the rear. It is considered therefore that the proposal would introduce an unacceptable risk of overlooking to the detriment of the living conditions and amenity of the occupants of no.26.

6.4 Other Matters

• 6.4.1 The proposal would provide additional living area for an existing dwelling including a home office at second floor level. It is not considered that any impact on highway capacity or parking would result.
• 6.4.2 One objection notes concern over the potential for a precedent to be set in the area. It should be noted that all planning applications are considered on their own merits.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 In summary, the proposed extension would not harm the amenities of the properties to either side, or the street scene of Summerhill Road. It would however result in unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy to the properties to the rear - particularly 26 The Park, and would introduce an unsympathetic dominant visual feature which would harm the appearance of the site and surroundings when viewed from Hague Drive. For the reasons outlined, the

• proposal would not accord with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP and is therefore recommended for refusal.
• 8.0 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 : Refused Date: 13.08.2021 Determining officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner

Customer note

This copyof 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.