Loading document...
The application site comprises of the residential curtilage of No.24 Harcroft Meadows, Douglas. The site is located within a predominantly residential area. To the north west of the application site is the residential property of No.25 Harcroft Meadows and to the south east, is the residential property of No. 23 Harcroft Meadows. To the rear of the application is 12 Harcroft Meadows.
This application is seeking planning permission to erect a two storey side extension. The extension will be 3.1m in width and 8.65m in length. The height of the extension will be 7.2m to the ridge. The facing and roofing materials are to match the existing property.
Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: General Policy 2 and paragraph 8.12.1.
Paragraph 8.12.1 states that "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".
The following previous applications are considered relevant in the consideration of this application:
03/01077/B – Erection of raised decking and pergola in garden – granted 18th November 2003.
Highways Division of the Department of Transport do not oppose the application.
Douglas Corporation does not oppose the application.
The occupier of No.25 Harcroft Meadow is concerned that the extension will greatly overshadow their property, and that the development will cause subsidence to the property.
Estates and Housing Directorate have comment that the application has not sought their permission to extend the property.
There two key issues in the determination of this application. These are 1) the impact on the visual amenities of the street scene and 2) the impact on No.25 Harcroft Meadows in terms of overshadowing, loss of light and overbearingness.
In respect of the visual amenities of Harcroft Meadows, the proposed extension has been designed to blend in with the existing property and the surrounding locality. The extension is fairly subservient when viewed from the public highway. The proposal will not cause any significant harm to the visual amenities of the street scene.
In respect of the impact on No.25 Harcroft Meadows, the application site is set to the south east of the neighbouring property. This application is proposing to extend the property towards the boundary of the neighbouring property. The neighbouring property is set approximately 6.1m behind the front building line of No.24 Harcroft Meadows and is set approximately 4.8m off the side elevation of No.24. The nearest habitable windows are set approximately 5.8m from the side elevation of the existing dwelling of No.24. This distance will be reduced to 2.8m when the extension is built. Due to the orientation of the site and the projection of the extension, it is considered that the extension will cause significant harm to the residential environment of No.25 Harcroft Meadows from overshadowing and loss of light. Furthermore, the proposed works will be visually intrusive and will have an overbearing impact when viewed from No.25 due to the projection and the height of the extension. It is therefore recommended that the proposed extension is unacceptable in this location.
It is recommended that the application be refused for the above reasons.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The Estates and Housing Directorate represents part of the Department of Local Government and the Environment and as such forms part of the Planning Officer's case. As such separate party status should not be afforded in this instance. In any case the points raised by the Directorate are not material planning considerations.
In summary, it is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded interested party status:
Douglas Corporation Highways Division of the Department of Transport The occuprer of No.25 Harcroft Meadows ☑ Accordingly the following parties are not afforded interested party status: Estates and Housing Directorate, Department of Local Government and the Environment.
Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 10.01.2008
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
R 1. The proposed extension by reason of its size, design, height and extent of projection would result in demonstrable harm to the amenities of No.25 Harcroft Meadows from overshadowing, loss of light, visual intrusion and overbearingness.
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: 10.01.2008 Signed: [Handwritten signature] M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown