116402

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      19/01398/B                                     Page  1  of  5

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 19/01398/B Applicant : Mr Lee Saunders Proposal : Erection of a detached garage and extension of existing driveway Site Address : 22 Carrick Park Sulby Isle Of Man IM7 2EY

Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken : 15.01.2020 Site Visit : 15.01.2020 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 12.02.2020 __

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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

C 2. For the avoidance of doubt, no approval is hereby given for the alteration of the existing access on to Carrick Park as shown on drawing 171-10.

Reason: Approval has not being sought for the alteration of the existing access.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings 171-10, date-stamped as having been received on 13th December 2019. __

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

None __

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      19/01398/B                                     Page  2  of  5

1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 22 Carrick Park, Sulby, Lezayre, a single-storey bungalow in Carrick Park at the inner side of a junction on a bend. The house is within a group of bungalows that share similar design and style.

1.2 The dwelling is set back from the road with a grassed front garden. There is a wide driveway in front of the garage and the hard standing leads to the southeast side of the house. At the southeast boundary, there are a few tall bushes close to the highway.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a single-storey detached garage close to the northeast boundary of the curtilage, The garage is set back from the southeast elevation (front elevation) of the main dwelling and will have a 1m gap to the southeast boundary.

2.2 The proposed garage would take up some grassed garden and there will be additional hard surface around the garage. The bushes at the southeast corner would be fully retained. There will be additional driveway paved in front of the proposed garage and merging with the existing driveway.

2.3 The garage will be 4m wide, 6m deep and about 4m tall. The garage will have a pitched roof. On the northeast elevation (facing highway), there is a garage door. On the northwest elevation (facing the main house), there is a fixed window and a side door. The northeast elevation and the roof would match the style of the main dwelling.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There is no previous application considered materially relevant to this application.

3.2 There was an application for 22 Carrick Park proposed an extension to property to provide ancillary living accommodation (18/01044/B). The application was withdrawn by the applicant.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 In terms of local policy, the site lies within an area designated as Predominantly Residential Use in the Sulby Local Plan 1998.

4.2 In terms of strategic policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:

4.3 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; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways".

4.4 "8.12.1 Extensions to Dwellings in built-up areas or sites designated for residential use: 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 an existing property

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      19/01398/B                                     Page  3  of  5

where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general."

4.5 Residential Design Guidance (July 2019 provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to an existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property.

4.6 RDG 4.4 Extension to Side Elevation and 4.5 Extension to a Dwelling on a Corner Plot are of special concern of the application.

4.7 RDG 4.1.1 state that for an extension to side elevation, "the main issues relate to the potential visual appearance of the extension within the street scene and of the individual dwelling as well as the impact on the amenities of those in neighbouring properties."

4.7 RDG 4.4.2 states: "A side extension should generally not project in front of the existing building or have flat roofs, a pitched roof will normally be essential to any side extension. The roof of the proposed extension should match the original in terms of pitch and shape. The ridgeline should either follow or often preferably, be lower than the original dwelling."

4.8 RDG 4.4.4 states: "Generally, where the property stands in a line of detached/semi-detached dwellings and the extension would fill in the gap; there is a risk that the extension will create a terraced appearance. This is not always in the interests of maintaining the character of the street, individual house, and in the interests of visual amenity, should be avoided."

4.9 RDG 4.4.6 states: "A second way of maintaining a visual break would be by leaving a gap of at least 1 metre between the side of the extension and the boundary of the property. However, a slight setback should still be retained."

4.10 RDG 4.5.1 states: "Extension in these locations should not be visually over-dominating or disrupt the sense of openness between the properties and the street scene."

4.11 RDG 4.5.2 states: "Generally, any extension should not project further than the building line of those properties on adjacent roads, while still respecting the existing dwelling."

4.10 RDG (July 2019) 6.3.1 states: "Front gardens provide an important physical boundary between a dwelling and the public realm. They can enhance the privacy of a dwelling, as well as filtering out the noise and air pollutants produced by pedestrians and motorised traffic. Front gardens with perimeter walls, hedges, or fences can offer safer spaces in which children can play and they often contribute to the natural habitat of wildlife. Urban green space has a positive effect on health and wellbeing, by enhancing sensory and aesthetic awareness."

4.11 RDG (July 2019) 7.2.1 states: "There are some common issues in relation to impact on neighbouring properties which may apply to both new dwellings and extension to dwellings, and these are: O Potential loos of light/overshadowing; O Potential overbearing impact upon outlook; and O Potential overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy"

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      19/01398/B                                     Page  4  of  5

5.1 The Lezayre Parish Commissioners has objected to this application (16/01/2020). The Commissioners comment that the application would lead to a lack of open space on the site. The commissioners are also hoping the applicant send in an application covering all proposed developments as a whole for them to consider, as they believe, there was an application for converting the existing garage into additional living accommodation.

5.2 The applicant is written in reply to the Commissioners comments (20/01/2020). The applicant states the proposal would retain plenty of open space at least as much as their neighbours. The applicant also states confusion about the "overall application" request as there is no other proposed development.

5.3 DoI Highway services have no objection (17/01/2020) but do request a section 109A be attached to any future consent.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The erection of a garage is listed as permitted development in the Town and Country (Permitted Development Order) 2012. However, this garage is the second garage within the curtilage (the requirement is only one)and the eave is around 4m (higher than the limit of 2.9m). Therefore, the proposal does require a planning approval.

6.2 There is a presumption in favour of extension as set out in GP2 and paragraph 8.12.1 subject to the works not having any adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area and the amenity of those in surrounding dwellings. As such, these are the main concern in this case, along with the impact on local traffic.

6.3 The proposed, however, is a detached garage. It is consider the policy on extension would apply here as the potential impact on visual design and neighbouring amenity are similar for both.

6.4 The impact on the character or appearance of the area has been detailed in the Residential Design Guide. This can be summarised as the following: style, design, and "terraced effect". This will be broken down in the following paragraphs.

6.5 The works will be partially visible from the front, with the northeast elevation facing the highway and the sides are visible when passing by. The proposed design of the northeast elevation and the roof will match that of the main dwelling. The side would not stand out, as the background would be the main dwelling of the applicant or the neighbour. Therefore, what is proposed therefore will have no adverse impact on the character or appearance of Carrick Park.

6.6 In terms of the front garden, the addition of hard surface would only cover a small portion of the front garden. In addition, the retained bushes would still be able to separate the garage from the road. Therefore, it meets the guidance on preserving the front garden.

6.7 The proposed garage is set back from the front elevation and 1m away from the southeast boundary, so it meets the RDG of preventing the "terraced effect".

6.8 The proposed garage setting complies with RDG 4.5 and therefore would have no adverse impact on the street scene or disrupt its openness.

6.9 Given reason 6.3 to 6.7, the application would not have a significant impact on the

6.10 The concern regarding amenity consist of light, outlook, and privacy. The closest window to the neighbouring property has a view of the main dwelling and the proposed garage would be reasonable as a new outlook. The proposed garage is one storey tall and about 4-5m

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      19/01398/B                                     Page  5  of  5

away from the neighbouring property. It is unlikely to overshadow the neighbouring property. There is no window or door facing the neighbouring property so there is no concern in losing privacy. Overall, there is no adverse impact on neighbouring property.

6.11 The extension is set back, therefore, it would not impair the visibility of the junction. There is no additional access point proposed so there is no additional impact on the traffic.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the reasons that the proposal is considered to comply with GP2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide, therefore, recommended for an approval.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land which the subject of the application is situated.

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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. __

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 14.02.2020

Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER

Stephen Butler

Head of Development Management

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.