Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/00345/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/00345/B Applicant : Mr Richard Turk Proposal : Erection of first floor extension over garage to form ancillary living accommodation Site Address : Primrose Cottage Minorca Vale Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7DZ
Planning Officer: Mrs Vanessa Porter Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 16.06.2020 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed development would be unsympathetic to the existing dwelling and the streetscene by reason of siting, scale, form and design which is contrary to General Policy 2 (b) & (c) and Environmental Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan and also contrary to the Residential Design Guidance 2019.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Primrose Cottage which is a dwelling which a two storey dwelling which has had extensions over time.
1.2 The property due to where it is situated on Minorca Hill at the entrance to Minorca Vale the property has a very prominent position within the streetscene and from the Manx Electric Railway Line which is situated north of the site.
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/00345/B Page 2 of 7
1.3 During my site visit it was noted that works have been started on PA15/00530/B.
THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The current planning application seeks approval to erect a first floor extension onto the previously approved double garage under 15/00530/B, The proposed first floor extension would measure 8m length by 6m wide with a height of 6.3m to the ground level and is to have a living room, shower room and two bedrooms.
2.2 Due to the topography of the site the double garage has been cut out from the sloping bank to the south east of the site, as such the proposed first floor extension is to measure 2m more than the ground level to take advantage of the embankment.
2.3 A staircase has been proposed to the north east elevation of the proposal with a wraparound footpath around the first floor level with a Juliet balcony being proposed to the south west elevation.
2.4 The double garage is to have stonework to the front elevation with the first floor extension having brown uPVC timber look planking to all elevations and an imitation slate roof in a dark grey colour.
PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 There are several applications on the site of which the most relevant is 15/00530/B of which the double garage was approved.
PLANNING POLICY
4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan 2005, Map 2. The property is outside of the Laxey Conservation Area. The Laxey and Lonan Area Plan 2005 has two policies which are relevant to this assessment, L/TRT/PR/5 and L/RES/PR/1.
4.2 L/TRT/PR/5 of the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan 2005 states, "3.20 No development will be permitted where this would have an adverse impact on the appearance, character, setting or amenities of any railway building, facility or along the track where any view from the Manx Electric, Groudle or Snaefell Mountain Railway would be adversely affected."
4.3 L/RES/PR/1 of the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan 2005 states, "4.69 Residential development will generally only be approved within the study area in those areas designated as proposed and existing residential."
4.4 Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider General Policy 2, Environment Policy 42, Transport Policy 3, 4, 7.
4.5 General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states, "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:
a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; 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; f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks. g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/00345/B Page 3 of 7
n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
4.6 Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states, "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."
4.7 Transport Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states, "New development on or around existing or former rail routes should not compromise their attraction as a tourism and leisure facility or their potential as public transport routes, or cycle/leisure footpath routes."
4.8 Transport Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states, "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."
4.9 Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states, "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Highway Services have No Highways Interest in this application (24.04.20).
5.2 No comments have been received from Garff Commissioners at the time of writing this report.
ASSESSMENT
6.1 Given the land-use designation and the type of development the following elements are relevant to consideration in the determination of this application; (a) principle of development; (b) the potential impact upon the visual amenities of the area; (c) potential impact upon neighbouring amenities; (d) potential impact upon highway safety; and (e) use of building
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
6.2 As outlined in the planning policy section of this report, the site is within a residential designation and therefore the proposal for additional residential development is acceptable. This is not an automatic reason to allow development as further material planning matters as indicated previously need to be considered to determine if the principle of ancillary accommodation on the site is appropriate.
POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON VISUAL AMENITIES
6.3 Whilst the proposal is not an extension or alteration of the dwelling, some of the guidance within the Residential Design Guidance 2019 would still apply, this would mainly be aspects which are to do with the appearance of the property within the streetscene. One such guidance would be "3.1.4 All extensions and alterations, particularly those incorporating modern design approaches, should be considered holistically with the original/mail building and its setting in the landscape/townscape to avoid an awkward jarring of materials and forms. However, well- judged modern designs using contemporary and sustainable materials will be welcomed, as the Department does not wish to restrict creative designs where they can be integrated successfully into their context. Such approaches, where well designed, can serve to both
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/00345/B Page 4 of 7
improve the sustainability of buildings and significantly improve the appearance of buildings to the general benefit of the streescene.
3.1.5 However, where inappropriately designed, located and finished, such approaches can be harmful to the character of a building and its surrounds, and become a local eyesore. Therefore, in some cases, modern design approaches will not be the most appropriate solution and the character and form of the building and its context may require a more traditional and reserved design approach.
3.1.6 It should also be accepted that in some instances it may not be possible to design an acceptable extension due to the sensitivity of the site, limited space, or the relationship with neighbouring dwellings."
6.4 The overall design of the structure is a mix of traditional and modern with the lower half of the garage being clad in stone and the upper level being clad in brown uPVC timber look panelling. Whilst modern approaches are encouraged, as stated above the main issue arising with a modern appearance is how they will fit within the overall streetscene. To this part of Minorca Hill and up Minorca Vale the properties are mostly traditional in appearance with the first few houses being clad in stone to the lower part and then rendered above.
6.5 The decision to clad the upper half of the garage in uPVC timber look panelling is whilst modern inappropriate for the setting that the garage will be in, with the main street being traditional and the fact that the property is in a very prominent position on Minorca Hill being on the inner corner of a bend and being very well seen from the Manx Electric Railway the overall look of the extension over the garage is unsympathetic to the main property and the streetscene as a whole.
6.6 Whilst it could be argued that the extensions proposed under PA15/00530/B means that the property loses a lot of its traditional appearance, it can also be argued that the property retains quite a lot of the traditional parts with the symmetry of the extensions fitting within the overall streetscene, the addition of the stone cladding to the middle of the property and the sliding sash windows.
6.7 Another aspect to the visual appearance of the garage extension is the overall size of the garage with the garage extension on top. The already approved garage under PA15/00530/B was to have a flat roof which generally would be undesirable due to the garage's position within the streetscene and the topography of the area. To overcome this, the applicants had positioned the garage within the hillside with part of the flat roof being hidden within the hillside itself. Overtime this would assist the roof to seamlessly fitting within the hillside, which would ultimately minimise the impact of the garage.
6.8 This can be seen in the reporting officer's report on PA15/00530/B which states, "6.5 Turning to the garage, a standalone building forward of the existing property can present an unwelcome addition to the streetscene and also affect views of the property in question. Therefore, the intention to submerge the garage for much of its extent within the existing bank is welcome. Such an approach is innovative and would also not harm the appearance of the site in the same way that a pitched roof garage sat within the front garden would."
6.9 The overall impact of the garage extension is quite significant when you look at the garage extension within the front of the main dwelling. The main dwelling overall has a main height of approximately 6.6 metres from the ground level to the top of the ridge whereas the garage plus extension will have an overall height of approximately 6.4 metres, this is a substantial jump from a garage which was going to attempt to fit seamlessly into the existing bank to an garage and extension which is almost the same height as the existing dwelling. This will change the impact of the garage substantially within the streetscene especially due to its prominent position.
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/00345/B Page 5 of 7
6.10 Whilst the garage and extension might not be an overdevelopment of the site due to the overall size of the plot, the garage and extension will add a dominating feature to the existing dwelling and the streetscene, especially when driving up from the south of Minorca Hill from Laxey will feel even more dominating.
POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES
6.11 When looking at the impact of the garage extension on the neighbouring properties, the main property besides Primrose Cottage itself which will be affected is "Holly Dene", Minorca Vale which is situated to the north west of the garage extension.
6.12 Whilst the potential issues of loss of light/overshadowing and potential overbearing impact upon outlook will not affect "Holly Dene" due to the topography of the site and where the garage and extension are situated. The main issue is with the potential that there could be loss of privacy.
6.13 The Residential Design Guidance 2019 gives advice on overlooking that can result in a loss of privacy by stating, "7.5.1 The "20 metre guide" provides a useful way to identify where overlooking is likely to be a concern. It refers to the distance between elevations that contain windows serving habitable rooms that face each other - if this distance is over 20 metres; overlook is unlikely to be a concern. This distance can be relaxed where the design or orientation is such that privacy and amenity of a neighbouring property is not compromised. In dense urban areas where there is already a level of mutual overlooking a lesser standard may be acceptable. The required distance may need to be greater if there is a change in topography, which would result in an adverse effect on the privacy and amenity of a neighbouring property."
6.14 When looking at the front of the garage to the living room area is a Juliet balcony which faces directly onto "Holly Dene" which is approximately 15 metres away, this could potentially add a direct overlooking aspect to the windows which are situated to the east of Holly Dene.
USE OF BUILDING
6.15 The proposal would result in a two bedroom unit with shower room and living room (36sq m internally) which would be quite separate from the main dwellinghouse. The applicant has stated that the unit would be to provide accommodation for family members who regularly visit for long periods of time.
6.16 Whilst there is not a kitchen shown on the plans one could be installed without planning permission and therefore concerns that the unit could potentially be used as a self-contained unit arise. When looking at ancillary accommodation this is normally accommodation which is used by and for the people of the main property, in a secondary manner and the whole planning unit (including the additional building) remains as a single unit of accommodation. Generally you cannot have an independent property 'ancillary' to another.
6.17 What needs to be considered when determining an application such as this is how a building is going to be used, with the main factor being whether it is to be used as a single household. A household contains either a single person, a family or people who live as a family with the main issue being whether they are living separately (i.e. come and go, watch television, eat, have different visitors etc). If the occupants of the garage extension do, then it is likely a separate dwelling. This would still apply even to relatives of the household, if they live separately, then it is a separate household. If a building, or part of a building, contains sufficient facilities to be used in a self-contained manner then they are generally considered to be a separate planning unit, whether or not they are occupied by a relative of occupants of the primary property or used by guests.
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/00345/B Page 6 of 7
6.18 When looking at a possible separation of the garage extension, whilst the addition of two bedrooms suggests that the use of the garage extension is beyond ancillary you could argue that there is some comfort in that fact that the applicants have stated the building would be used in association with the main dwelling, with the visitors to the garage extension utilising the same access and parking area as the main dwelling. Adding in the fact that the area is designated as residential and the garage extension would overlook the garden/front driveway and it's close proximity to the main dwelling could all be considered as ancillary points.
6.19 The applicants have also given a clear indication on what they propose to utilise the unit for and it would seem a reasonable require and with the appropriate conditions in place should not result in a separate dwelling.
CONCLUSION
7.1 Whilst the proposed additional residential development would be acceptable the overall development is against General Policy 2 (b) & (c) and Environment Policy 42 by reason of siting, scale, form and design.
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.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 16.06.2020
Determining officer Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett
Principal Planner
==== PAGE 7 ====
20/00345/B Page 7 of 7
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