Planning Officer Report Recommendation

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:140701}} ### Considerations {{table:140702}} ### Written Representations {{table:140703}} ### Consultations {{table:140704}} {{table:140705}}

Officer's Report

Description Of Application Site

• The application site is the two storey terraced property of No.66 Murrays Road. The site is set on the northern side of Murrays Road.
• There is a single and two storey outrigger to the rear of the property.
• The application site is within a predominantly residential area.
• To the north west of the application site is the residential property of 68 Murrays Road.
• To the south east of the application site is the residential property of N0.64 Murrays Road.
• To the rear of the application site is a lane. On the opposite side of the lane is Murrays Road School

Proposal

• The applicant is seeking permission to demolish the existing single storey outbuildings and erect a garage and utility to the rear with roof deck.
• The extension will project 5.1m to the rear and will be 5.9m in width. The extension will wrap around the two storey outrigger by 3.8m.
• The height of the extension will be approximately 2.8m.
• A roof terrace will be created on top of the extension.
• A 800mm high Balustrade with frosted glass infill panel will be created.

Relevant Planning History

• None

Development Plan Policies

• Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Douglas Local Plan) Order 1998

Statutory Consultation Responses

• Douglas Corporation – no objection.
• Highways Division of the DoT do not oppose the application subject to the imposition of the following conditions:
• Alterations to the rear lane shall be made to the satisfaction of the planning authority after consultation with the DoT Highways
• The garage door shall not obstruct the footway.

Public Responses

• Press notice were posted on 20.7.06
• Representations have been received from the occupiers of Nos. 64 and 66 Murrays Road.
• The occupiers of No. 64 Murrays Road have made the following comments:
• wish to object to the application
• have no objection to the principle of demolition of the outbuildings and the erection of the garage and utility. However, we are concerned that the access to the roof deck, and the subsequent use as a patio area, would encroach on the privacy to our kitchen, ground floor living room and, with great concern, to our outside wc which is in regular use.
• We also have concern that the proposed balustrade/panel would cut out light from an already dark area. The terraced houses provide limited garden space and our yard provides useful space for growing flowers in tubs. If we were to be deprived of this facility it would cause us some distress. We feel that the heightening of the walls with these panels would make our yard very claustrophobic.
• The occupiers of No. 66 Murrays Road have made the following comments:
• The proposed sun deck would have detrimental effect on my property due to its commanding elevated position and, indeed, so would any proposed structure which would be a greater height than the existing party wall.

• The sun deck would look down over the entire rear of our property and rear yard, thereby severely reducing what little privacy currently exists, namely;

• My toilet, bathroom, shower area and kitchen would be clearly visible from the sun deck, which would severely reduce privacy for myself and my family.

• The rear yard would be clearly visible from the sun deck and thereto would my washing line;

• The intended raised wall, garage and sun deck would reduce the natural light to the rear of my property as it is at a much greater building height than the current wall; this would make the rear yard appear narrower and claustrophobic.

• The value of my property would be affected because of the close and imposing proximity to my rear living accommodation of the proposed structure.

• I should like it to be known that I may not object to the sole inclusion of a garage, however not as submitted in the original plans.

• I object to the proposed plan to increase the height of the existing party wall, which would block out light to my kitchen and rear yard area.

Issues

• In terms of the impact on No.64 and 68 Murrays Road, the application site is set to the North West of the neighbouring property. The existing boundary wall would remain in situ. The height of the existing wall is 2.8m along the boundary of No.64 Murrays Road. The proposal would include the erection of an 800mm balustrade which would increase the height of the wall to 3.6m. This section of wall would extend from the rear elevation of the existing two storey outrigger to the rear boundary. This would mean that 5m of the existing boundary wall would become 3.6m in height. The boundary treatment would have an overbearing impact and would be visually intrusive when viewed from the rear yard of No.64 Murrays Road. I therefore consider the proposal would impact on the enjoyment of the yard.

• In terms of any impact from loss of light, due to the orientation of the site, the proposal would cause very little impact in terms of loss of light. I therefore do not consider the proposal would cause demonstrable harm to the occupiers of No.64 in terms of overshadowing or loss of light.

• In terms of the impact on No.68 Murrays Road, the applications site is set to the south east of the neighbouring property. There are two windows on the rear elevation of the neighbouring property which serve a habitable room. The nearest window is set approx 500mm off the boundary. The existing boundary wall would remain in situ. The height of the existing wall is 2.2m along the boundary of No.68 Murrays Road. The proposal is to build a new outer leaf of the existing wall by 700mm and then erect the 800mm balustrade which will increase the height of the wall to 3.7m. This section of wall would extend from the rear boundary wall to the rear elevation of the neighbouring property. This would mean that 8.5m of the existing boundary wall would become 3.7m in height. The boundary treatment would have an overbearing impact and would be visually intrusive when viewed from the rear yard and rear ground floor windows of No.68 Murrays Road.

• In terms of overshadowing. As highlighted above the application site is set to the south east of the neighbouring property. The proposal would be on the northern side of the property. The proposal would cause very little impact in terms of overshadowing and loss of light. I therefore do not consider this to be a reason for refusal.

• In terms of the impact of the roof terrace onto the neighbouring properties. The decked area on the roof of the garage would allow the applicant to sit out on the roof. However due to the height of the balustrade being only 1100mm height from the floor level of the roof this would allow substantial views of the rear yard and into the rear windows of the neighbouring properties. I

therefore feel the use of the roof terrace would cause demonstrable harm to the occupiers of No.64 and 68 Murrays Road from overlooking and loss of privacy.

Conclusion

I therefore recommend that planning permission be refused for the above reasons.

Party Status

I consider that the following should be granted party status due to their being Statutory Consultees or meeting the criteria of Government Circular 1/06

• Douglas Corporations
• Highways Division of the Department of Transport
• The occupiers of No. 64 Murrays Road; and
• The occupiers of No. 68 Murrays Road.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 22.08.2006

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 boundary treatment, by reason of its height, design, siting, massing and extent of projection in close proximity to Numbers 64 and 68 Murrays Road, would result in demonstrable harm to the amenities of those properties from increased visual intrusion.

R 2.

The proposed use of the roof terrace, by reason of its height, design, siting and extent of projection in close proximity to adjacent dwellings, would result in demonstrable harm to the amenities of those properties from overlooking and loss of privacy.

I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)

Decision Made : Refused Date : ……………………………

Signed : ……………………………

Signed: M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control

Signed: M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control

22 August 2006

22 August 2006