DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 21/00678/B Applicant: David Kennagh & Isaac Jones Proposal: Erection of single storey extension with roof terrace Site Address: 9 Knock Rushen Scarlett Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1TQ Planning Officer: Mr Nick Salt Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 05.10.2021 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The proposed rear first floor balcony would introduce an unacceptable level of overlooking (both perceived and actual), resulting in harm to the residential amenity of the occupants of 10 Knock Rushen through loss of privacy and direct views into the 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)):

10 Knock Rushen, Castletown as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status. _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling situated within the relatively modern Knock Rushen estate of houses at the southern end of Scarlett Road. The estate comprises a mix house types, mostly with modestly scaled rear gardens. There is a detached garage and parking to the rear of the garden of no.9.

1.2 The dwelling features a small, hipped roof utility extension beyond the main rear elevation, to the boundary with no.8 - the adjoining dwelling. No.10 is adjacent to the southwest, with a footpath running between the properties which provides access from numbers 8, 9, 10 and 11 from the footway through to the parking area at the rear. - 1.3 The site is not within any Conservation Area and does not relate to a Registered Building.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a single storey flat roof rear extension. The extension would project to the rear by 3 metres - level with the existing utility annex extension and would also have a matching eaves height of slightly under 3 metres. The extension is proposed with a width of 5.05 metres. Sandstone quoins, plinth and door surrounds would match the main dwelling, as would the painted render finish. - 2.2 The proposal also seeks the replacement of two rear first floor windows with patio doors, and the creation of a balcony above the new extension, with 1.1-metre-high glass balustrade.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site falls within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the South 2013. As such, General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan is the key policy in the consideration of this application. - 3.2 GP2 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 (2019) is a material consideration. Section 3 of the guidance relates to householder extensions and at Section 7 assessing impacts on neighbouring properties.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 No recent or relevant planning history for this site has been identified.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 DOI Highways state that they have no highways interest in this application (08.07.21).

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 impact on residential amenity. - 6.2 Visual Impact

• 6.2.1 As referenced earlier in this report, General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan requires that development respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them and does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape. The Residential Design Guidance notes 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.

• 6.2.2 The extension would be modestly scaled and would not project further from the main rear elevation than the existing utility room. Due to its flat roof at 3 metre height, it would not have a significant impact on the street scene or the appearance of the wider area. The extension would be sympathetic and subordinate to the main dwelling, including through the use of matching materials.
• 6.2.3 Impact on the character and appearance of the street scene is considered to be acceptable. It is concluded therefore that the proposed would be in accordance with GP2 of the IOMSP in this regard.

6.3 Residential Amenity

• 6.3.1 General Policy 2 further requires that new development does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents. Further details of how residential amenity can be impacted are set out in the Residential Design Guide. The key aspects are overlooking (loss of privacy), overbearing (loss of outlook) and overshadowing (loss of sunlight).
• 6.3.2 The dwellings to the north (rear) of the site are sited at an acute angle relative to the site dwelling, at a minimum of 24 metres from the proposed balcony. Views from the balcony to the rear of the properties to the north would be obscured and limited by the site garage, garages serving other dwellings, the prevalence of boundary fencing and the distance of over 21 metres. Views from the balcony to the northeast towards the rear of no.8 would be limited due to the existing roof of the utility extension. Towards no.10, there is a greater level of separation, and views would be partially limited due to the ground floor rear extension erected to no.10. However, there would be clear views looking down into the rear garden of no.10 which would lead to an unacceptable loss of privacy. It is noted that the currenty occupant of no.10 does not object to the proposal, and this is given some weight. However, planning is concerned with the land and the likely loss of privacy could result in a severe loss of amenity for future occupants.
• 6.3.3 The applicant's comments regarding the dwelling across from the site and their Juliet balcony are noted. The range and nature of views and therefore overlooking from a terrace are increased relative to a juliet balcony and the impact is more severe. Given the presence of a footpath between nos. 9 & 10, and the 3-metre height of the extension, it is not considered that there would be a loss of light or unacceptable overbearing.
• 6.3.4 In summary, the proposed rear first floor balcony would introduce an unacceptable level of overlooking (both perceived and actual), resulting in harm to the residential amenity of the occupants of 10 Knock Rushen through loss of privacy and direct views into the 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.

7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 In summary, whilst the proposal is considered to otherwise accord with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP, the guidance set out in the Residential Design Guidance, and the land use designation set out in the Area Plan for the South 2013, the aforementioned overlooking risk from the large roof terrace would be unacceptable and contrary to the above.

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: 05.10.2021 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.