Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/00368/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/00368/B Applicant : Mr Paul Kennedy Proposal : Proposed Leisure Extension Site Address : Seascapes Mount Gawne Road Port St Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5LX
Planning Officer: Mr Hamish Laird Photo Taken : 19.04.2023 Site Visit : 19.04.2023 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 20.06.2023 __
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. Overall it is concluded that the planning application accords with the provisions set out in Housing Policy 15, Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the documents and plans date stamped and received 27 March, 2023, namely:
Drawing No. 01 - Site location Plan @ scale 1:1,000; Drawing No. 05 - Proposed Ground Floor Plan @ scale 1:100; Drawing No. 06 - Proposed First Floor Plan, Elevations and Section @ scale 1:100;
__
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
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/00368/B Page 2 of 7
matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
2 Shore Road as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site comprises the residential dwelling at Seascapes, Mount Gawne Road, Port St Mary, which is a modern, large, two storey detached property located on the south-west side of Mount Gawne Road, close to the junction with Shore Road. The dwelling is set back on the site from the road and is screened from it by a high wall with security gates providing vehicular access in a gap in the wall onto the road. The dwelling on site features a hipped/pitched, tiled roof with attached triple garage with open plan room above under a pitched roof with external staircase to the side and front of the dwelling. The room above the garage is open-plan and has an internal connection via a small fight of steps to the first floor accommodation. The dwelling has four first floor double bedrooms with en-suite bathroom facilities, with bedrooms 3 and 4 sharing an en-suite bathroom. Attached to the west side/rear of the dwelling is a flat-roofed garden room with sitting out area above screened by a glass balustrade and accessed via an external staircase attached to the west side of the dwelling.
1.2 To the west of the application site is a similarly large, 3-storey detached dwelling of traditional design with rendered walls under a slate roof with multiple chimney stacks at The Mount. To the rear (south) of the site are 3 new dwellings at 1, 2 and 3 The Waterfront which face directly onto Shore Road. These dwellings are set at a lower level compared with Seascapes. Opposite the site to the north lies open countryside with views across open fields towards Ballagawne, Colby and Ballakilpheric with distant views of mountains beyond. The site lies outside the Main Settlement Boundary for Port St Mary as shown on the Area Plan for the South - Map 7 - Port Erin/Port St Mary/Ballafesson.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application proposes the erection of a leisure extension to be attached to the rear elevation (SE side) of the existing triple garage at property. The extension would measure approx. 8.0m wide x 7.52m deep x 2.8m high to the eaves; and, 4.5m to the ridge of its pitched roof. The extension would be set in from each of the side elevations of the garage by approx. 0.75m. It would be served by 2 No. 2.0m x 2.0m windows in the rear (SE) elevation, with a 0.8m wide x 1.8m high pedestrian access door on the south west side enabling access from the rear garden. No windows are proposed to be inserted in the NE facing elevation of the room - this would be blank. There would be no internal access from the garage. The room is proposed as ancillary accommodation for leisure purposes. Drawing No. 05 includes a photograph of the view to the south east, advising: "View to the South East from the corner of the Proposed Leisure Room. This elevation has two windows, but does not directly overlook any neighbouring property."
2.2 There is one mature tree located in the rear garden towards the SE boundary which is marked by 1.8m high close-boarded timber fencing and a wooden garden shed.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South (2013) as land not designated for a particular purpose. The site is not in a Flood Risk Area or Conservation Area and none of the buildings or trees on site is Registered.
3.2 As such, the following parts of the Strategic Plan are relevant:
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/00368/B Page 3 of 7
General Policy 2: "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".
3.3 Environment Policy 22 (in part):
Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: (iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution;
3.4 In respect of Housing Policies HP15 and HP16 in the Strategic Plan, the supporting text at Paragraph 8.12.2 "Extensions to properties in the Countryside" is of relevance. This reads:
"As there is a general policy against development in the Island's countryside, it is important that where development exists, either in an historic or recently approved form, it should not, when altered or extended detract from the amenities of the countryside. Care therefore, must be taken to control the size and form of extensions to property in the countryside. In the case of traditional properties, the proportion and form of the building is sensitively balanced and extensions of inappropriate size or proportions will not be acceptable where these destroy the existing character of the property. In the case of non-traditional properties, where these are of poor or unsympathetic appearance, extensions which would increase the impact of the property will generally not be acceptable. It may be preferable to consider the redevelopment of non-traditional dwellings or properties of poor form with buildings of a more traditional style and in these cases, the Department may consider an increase in size of the replacement property over and above the size of the building to be replaced, where improvements to the appearance of the property would justify this."
3.5 Housing Policies 15 and 16 advise as follows:
Housing Policy 15: "The extension or alteration of existing traditionally styled properties in the countryside will normally only be approved where these respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. Only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally)."
Housing Policy 16: "The extension of non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public."
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Seascape has been the subject of numerous applications for its construction and subsequent alteration. These are:
4.2 06/01361/B - Demolish existing dwelling and erection of a replacement dwelling with integral garaging at Dolphins Mount Gawne Road Port St. Mary Isle of Man IM9 5LX. In recommending approval of the application the Officer Report advised:
"ASSESSMENT The property is larger than the existing although The Mount is significantly larger than this will be. The Mount is a prominent property in the streetscene as viewed both from Mount Gawne Road and Shore Road. The property to the south - Nooklands may be affected although there is some vegetation between the rear garden and this site. The new property will be somewhat higher than this dwelling. Nooklands, together with the
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/00368/B Page 4 of 7
garaging to the east has been the subject of proposals for re-development: PA 01/2110 proposed the principle of redevelopment for apartments and was permitted. PA 04/00095 proposed the principle of the erection of 18 apartments and was refused for reasons relating of the height, design and massing and this impact on the streetscene.
The proposed dwelling does not face directly towards any other property but at 45 degrees to Nooklands. The floor level is not dissimilar to that of The Mount and as such the proposed property is likely to have a similar impact in the street scene, to this existing dwelling.
Whilst larger than the existing, the surrounding properties are largely two storey and the proposed dwelling will not represent over-development."
4.3 18/00033/B - Erection of gates to existing access - Approved 3/8/18.
4.4 The redevelopment of the land to the south was approved under a series of applications including 16/00740/B for the "Erection of three dwellings and erection of garden store to replace garage (amendment of PA 15/00739/B)" on the former Motorland and Nooklands Site, Shore Road, which included the demolition of the existing garaging, the rebuilding of the roadside wall and the use of the area as a shed for the house on plot 3.
4.5 In recommending approval of the application the Officer Report advised:
"6.10 Given that the dwellings proposed now are smaller and have similar levels of glazing to the rear as those for which planning approval already exists, it is considered that the impact on neighbouring living conditions would be acceptable. In some ways, the resulting relationship would be better since the approved scheme's dwellings each had a large garage to the rear of the site near to Dolphins whereas the current scheme has no built development north of the rear elevation of the proposed houses."
4.6 There have also been a number of applications for the development of properties in the area which have been permitted - the replacement of Clybane, the alteration and extension of Seahaven, both across Mount Gawne Road from the site; the redevelopment of Kilravock; and, the alterations to the rear of Avondale. None of these approved and built schemes is of direct relevance to the current proposal, however, they demonstrate the changing nature of the immediate area.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Arbory And Rushen Parish District Commissioners: "The Board was concerned at the apparent overdevelopment of the site and were concerned about parking for during the building works if the application is supported." (13/4/2023)
5.2 Highways Services - HDC has no interest (NHI) in: 23/00368/B - (13/04/23)
5.3 On 28 April 2023 the occupants of 2 Shore Road, Port St Mary Isle Of Man wrote to Object to the proposal on the following grounds: "Due to the elevated nature of the application site relative to our adjacent property (sea side of the applicant's property), our concern is that the windows from the proposed leisure extension will directly overlook the whole of the rear of our property. We would be happy to discuss these plans with the applicant, in the hope that our concerns might be addressed or mitigated. Relationship to site: Immediately adjacent to the site." 5.4 On 30th May, 2023, the neighbours at 2 Shore Road, commented further advising:
"With regards to the proposed leisure extension by Mr Paul Kennedy under application number 23/00368/B, we have now spoken to the applicant and had the opportunity to visit the site of the proposed extension at Seascapes. Having visited the site, we are satisfied that so long as the bushes along the Seascapes side of the border/boundary between Seascapes and our own
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/00368/B Page 5 of 7
property at 2 The Waterfront, Shore Road remain in place at the current height and density to provide a screen between the proposed extension and our property, that we have no objection to the proposed application."
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are:
(i) The principle of development (HP15) (ii) The visual impact of the proposed development; (GP2 b, c) (HP16) (iii) The impact upon the amenities (overlooking, loss of light; over bearing impact, privacy and visual amenity) of the neighbouring properties. (GP2(g); and, (iv) The impact of the use of the extension for leisure purposes viz noise or light pollution (EP22);
6.2 Principle of development 6.2.1 The site comprises an existing dwelling with a triple garage set to the side which is well-screened by existing wooden boundary fencing to the rear (south); shrubs and vegetation; and, a stone wall to the north along the sites frontages with Mount Gawne Road and Shore Road. The site lies outside the settlement boundary for Port St Mary, and DEFA records indicate that the dwelling and garage have been lawfully erected - see PA Ref: 06/01361/B. The dwelling has not been previously extended and Permitted Development rights were not withdrawn by any condition attaching to the 06/01361/B approval The extension would represent an increase in floorspace of much less than 50% of the floorspace of the original dwelling and garage, and as such would comply with the provisions of Housing Policy 15 in the Strategic Plan. In principle, the proposed development involving the addition of a single storey, pitch-roofed extension to the rear of the existing triple garage to provide a room for leisure purposes is considered to be acceptable.
6.3 Visual impact 6.3.1 The proposed works involve the addition of a pitch-roofed extension to the SE side (rear) of existing garage property to construct a new leisure room. The extension would measure approx. 8.0m wide x 7.52m deep x 2.8m high to the eaves; and, 4.5m to the ridge of its pitched roof. The extension would be visible from Shore Road, although when viewed from certain parts of Mount Gawne Road, it would be screened by the existing wall bounding the site with the road, and by the position of the host dwelling. Public views of the site from the north and east would be limited largely by the dwelling on site and by the garage itself which is set to the western front/side of the dwelling within the garden area. The footprint of the Leisure Extension at approx. 60m2 would be similar to that of the garage - at approx. 66.5m2, and overall, it is considered to represent a relatively minor addition to the dwelling, which has not been previously extended.
6.3.2 As indicated above, the extension would be clearly visible from the west close to the junction of Mount Gawne Road with Shore Road, and the provisions of Policy HP16 are of relevance, here. Policy HP16 advises that "The extension of non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public." In assessing the proposal against HP16, the Case Officer considers that the size, bulk and scale of the extension, when read against that of the host dwelling and garage, would not demonstrably affect the overall external appearance of the property and would be screened from neighbouring dwellings to the north and west to the north along the sites frontages with Mount Gawne Road and Shore Road.
6.3.3 It is further considered that views of the extension from the side/rear of the site would in part be screened by existing wooden boundary fencing to the rear (south); shrubs and vegetation. The proposed Leisure Extension is considered to be acceptable in terms of its design and visual impact. This accords with the provisions of Policies EP22 (iii) and HP16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).
==== PAGE 6 ====
23/00368/B Page 6 of 7
6.3 Neighbouring amenity Given the position of the extension on the site attached to the rear of the garage, screened by the host dwelling from the road and thus would be screened from public view to the north and east largely by the dwelling on site and by the garage itself, when coupled with the relatively large size of the rear garden area; and screening from neighbouring dwellings to the rear of the site by existing trees, shrubs and vegetation; and, wooden boundary fencing, it is considered the extension and its use for home leisure purposes would not result in an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenities enjoyed by occupants of neighbouring properties to the south at 1, 2 and 3 Shore Road in respect of loss of privacy through overlooking, being overbearing, or on the grounds of loss of light to, or outlook from any neighbouring or nearby dwellings. The comments originally received from the neighbour at No. 2 Shore Road relating to overlooking and loss of privacy have been noted. The applicant was advised of the neighbours' concerns, and the neighbours were invited to view their property from the application site. Subsequent to their visit, the neighbours further contacted DEFA advising that: ..."Having visited the site, we are satisfied that so long as the bushes along the Seascapes side of the border/boundary between Seascapes and our own property at 2 The Waterfront, Shore Road remain in place at the current height and density to provide a screen between the proposed extension and our property, that we have no objection to the proposed application." Given the retraction of the concerns originally raised by the occupants of No. 2 Shore Road, It is considered that no unacceptable impacts on these or any other neighbours amenities would arise as a result of the development, and that he extension would not appear overbearing when viewed from any neighbouring residential properties. . The proposed development is considered to be acceptable with regard to its potential impact on neighbours' amenities and, as such, accords with the provisions of Policy (GP2 b, c) of the Isle of Man Development Plan (2016).
6.4 Environmental harm Turning to the use of the extension for leisure purposes associated with the lawful occupation of the dwelling as a residence, it is considered that the extension would be sited sufficiently far away from any neighbouring and nearby dwellings whereby any noise or light emanating from the extension resulting from its use would not adversely impact on neighbours residential amenities in respect of noise disturbance or light pollution. This accords with the provisions of Policy (GP2 b, c) of the Isle of Man Development Plan (2016).
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons, it is concluded that the planning application for the erection of an extension to the rear of the existing garage at Seascapes would not unacceptably harm the visual amenity of the area; or the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties; and, would comply with the principles of Housing Policies 15 and 16; General Policy 2; and, Environmental Policy 22 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and is recommended for approval.
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.
==== PAGE 7 ====
23/00368/B Page 7 of 7
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: 21.06.2023
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal