Loading document...
Use of summer house within garden as gym for one to one exercise classes (retrospective) Stoneycroft<br>Clay Head Close<br>Baldrine<br>Isle Of Man<br>IM4 6DW PA Reference 20/00770/C Prepared on behalf of the Planning Authority by Planning Officer Mrs Vanessa Porter
The Isle of Man Planning system is based on a series of delegations from the Minister, including:
The Planning Committee Standing Orders set out the circumstances in which applications must be referred to the Committee, and the officer' delegations prevent their determination of an application which should be referred (based on complexity and/or level of public interest). Around a fifth of applications are referred to the Committee, each with an officer recommendation
The Committee is charged with the duty to determine the planning applications that are referred to them. Section 10(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act provides that the decision maker(s) can grant approval, grant approval with conditions or refuse permission. The decision maker(s) shall have regard to the development plan, National Policy Directives or Planning Policy Statements that are relevant, and all other material consideration. When making a decision, the balance and weight attached to policies and material considerations is a matter for the decision maker(s). It is therefore perfectly reasonable for the Committee to overturn officer recommendations. In such circumstances the role of the Case Officer is to explain the Committee's position to the Appeal Inspector (and of course to help to answer any other questions).
On the basis of the above, this report is an updated version of the officer report originally presented to committee, amended to reflect their views and comments. The original report can be viewed on-line along with the application details and decision notice via www.gov.im/viewapplications.
The application was presented to the Planning Committee on the 2nd November 2020 by the request of the Principle Planner. The accompanying officer report recommended refusal. In accordance with the Standing Orders the consideration included:
As recorded in the minutes the case officer put down the reason for refusal down as, "The proposal is considered not to comply with General Policy 2(g), (h) and (i) with regards to the potential noise and possible disruption to neighbouring properties and with regards to the parking issues on site."
Highways are also recorded in the minutes confirming, "that although the initially had no objection to the proposal, further information submitted with regard to the application gave rise to concern that there would be insufficient on-site parking provision which could lead to on-street parking and the creating of potential traffic hazards."
Following discussion, the Committee declined the recommendation and voted to approve the application for the following reason, "The proposal is considered to comply with Business Policy 1 by supporting the opportunity of healthy active lifestyles."
An extract from the Planning Committee minutes in included in appendix 1. The reason for making the appeal is given in the Reasons for Appeal, stating, "The Commissioners are appealing the approval of PA20/00770/C on several grounds including the
detrimental effect caused by the operation of the proposed business on the amenity of neighbouring residents, highway/ road safety issues, etc."
1.1 The application site is 'Stoneycroft', Baldrine. The site forms part of the small cul-de-sac of Clay Head Close, at the junction with Clay Head Road. It sits on an area of relatively steep topography, with a sloped front garden and the properties to the north sitting substantially lower.
1.2 The site dwelling itself is a bungalow of modest appearance, similar in size to the others in Clay Head Close. The frontages of the properties along the Close typically feature front gardens with mature hedging and trees around boundary areas. The corner plot opposite the site is well screened by vegetation with hedging which bounds the site with 'Mouette' to the south west.
1.3 To the site frontage there is a recently altered driveway with a raised concrete platform (which requires Planning Permission and is not part of this application) at the side of a 3 metre wide driveway.
1.4 There is a garage which was constructed on part of the driveway during the time of this application which is not part of this application. When discussed with the applicants the garage currently does not fit within our Permitted Development order. The applicants have proposed that works will be done to the garage so that it fits within Permitted Development and if not the applicants have stated they will put an additional application in for this.
1.5 In response to an objection from Highway Services, part of the staircase attached to a ramp has been removed to provide an additional car parking space to the north east of the property. Whilst this does add an additional parking space it is below the requirements of a parking space within the Manual for Manx Roads.
1.6 Proposed is one on one training sessions from the summerhouse situated in the rear of the property. The summerhouse measures 5m by 3m with a height of 2.4m.
1.7 The proposed times of operation are 8am to 8pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 12pm on a Saturday. There are to be no extra staff and a maximum of 5 people per day.
2.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Laxey and Lonan Local Plan 2005, Lonan Map.
2.2 Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider General Policy 2, Business Policy 1 and Business Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
2.3 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:
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 convent 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'
11 January 2021
Page 3 of 9
j) can be provided with all necessary services; 2.4 Business Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states; "The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan." 2.5 9.3.4 of the Strategic Plan indicates that commerce is directed to town centres but there are some exceptions which include working from home where this does not result in staff being employed or day-to-day callers, no detriment to the area and less travelling involved, and notes it is a way to encourage the formation of new local businesses. 2.6 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." 2.8 Appendix A.7.6 of the Isle of Man Strategic plan 2016 should also be noted which stipulates that, for a typical residential development, two (2) spaces should be provided per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling.
3.1 There are several applications on the site of which the most recent is the most relevant. PA19/01042/B was for the erection of a shed to the front of the property and was refused for the following reasoning, "It is considered that the proposal does not accord with General Policy or the best practice approach outlined in the Residential Design Guidance due to the overall mass and siting of the shed - particularly when viewed from the roadside adjacent to the site. The visual impact of the shed would detract from the street scene of Clay Head Close and from the nature of the semi-rural Clay Head Road, as well as the appearance of the site itself."
4.1 Highway Services have sent in two responses to this application, on the 4.08.20 Highways wrote in to state that they have No Highways Interest the application. 4.2 Further correspondence was received on the 22.10 .20 after receiving additional drawings to show the garage on the driveway in which Highway Services are now objecting to the application. Highway Services have stated the following, "The revised driveway layout has insufficient and inadequate space for three vehicles indicated within the submission with two to serve the existing use and one for a customer to undertake the one to one tuition at the gym. 4.3 There is space for one vehicle on the original part of the drive; although a second vehicle is shown parking on the area of the concrete base, it is a small car which is atypical of the design car uses to meet parking standards. Additionally, a driver would have to undertake an awkward manoeuvre to and from it due to the change in levels. Furthermore, its side and front are unprotected adding to the safety risk. This is likely to lead to further safety hazards from parking on the existing highway in close proximity to the junction with Clay Hill Road potentially obstructing lines of sight as well as the mouth of the junction compounded by the narrowness of Clay Hill Road." 4.4 Garff Commissioners have considered the proposal and object to the proposal for the following reasons, "Members considered this application very carefully. It was noted that this was a retrospective application and that traffic movements \& parking were matters of concern. Members also noted the concerns that had been raised in regard to noise disturbance in this residential area. The Board Resolved to Object to this application" (13.08.20).
4.5 Further correspondence was received from Garff Commissioners regarding the erection of a garage on the site and stated "PA20/00770/C states that there are three car parking spaces on the driveway, this is now not the case" (23.09.20)
4.6 An amendment was received from the applicant which shows the available parking and the garage in place.
4.7 Further comments were received from Garff Commissioners making note of the previously refused application and stated, "The clerks were instructed to seek further clarification of the capacity for parking on the site from the planners and to seek clarification of the Planning Officer's decision to include the new wooden structure in the amendment to the application rather than requesting a separate application. It was noted that the structure may not meet the criteria of Permitted Development." (12.10.20)
4.8 The following properties have written in to support the application stating that they have no issues with the application and/or do not think there will be an issue with highway safety.
4.9 The following properties have written in to object to the application on the grounds of the type of business, noise and highway safety.
4.10 The following properties have written in to object to the application on the grounds of noise and highway safety.
4.11 The following properties have written in to support the application as clients of the gym.
11 January 2021
Page 5 of 9
5.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the planning application is the principle of the use of operating the business from a residential setting, the visual and amenity impact of the shed, the impact of the use on neighbouring amenities and highway safety/parking.
5.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 acknowledges the positive impact that sport and recreating has on the quality of island life, and which feeds into the objectives of the Strategic Plan and the overarching Government aims in making our Island a special place to live and work. Business Policy 1 supports the creating of employment opportunities. The creation of a gym business supports these aspirations. 5.3 The independent use of a building as a gym would fall within use class 4.4 of the Town and Country Planning (use classes) Order 2019, prior to this they did not fall into any particular use class, and hence limited (if any) provision is made for them within the various Area/Local Plans. As such, they can be found across various parts of the Island in different locations. "Stoneycroft" is within a site zoned as 'predominantly residential' and as such the change of use of the rear shed would not comply with the land use designation in 3.1, however the majority of the application site will stay as a dwellinghouse. 5.4 There is acknowledgement of working from home in the Strategic Plan (9.3.4) and in the Town and Country Planning (Change of Use)(Development)(No.2) Order (2019) retains the provisions for homeworking (use as an office) provided nobody has to travel to the house. There have been a number of applications for working from home in recent times (including, but not only, since the events of 2020) which have been supported on the basis that nobody other than the resident at the property work at the business, there are a limited number of callers (itself normally a product of there only being one member of staff), there is no detriment to local amenity and there is sufficient parking (having regard to the proposed use, the existing level of provision, the nature of the area - i.e. availability of on-street parking, and the potential for customers to walk/use public transport). 5.5 As such when looking at the principle of the additional use it should be acknowledged that permission had been approved and refused for the operation of general businesses from a residential property, throughout the Island. Whilst these are normally for uses such as beauty and treatment, gyms have been approved recently specifically PA17/01295/B (124 Fairways Drive, Mount Murray) and PA20/00961/C (9 The Abbey Woods, Douglas). 5.6 It should be noted that "Stoneycroft" is not close to a town centre or commercial area by being situated between the main town centres of Onchan and Laxey and with the proposal being for one to one classes, as such the impact of the proposed change of use is unlikely to draw materially harmful levels of trade away from the town or village centres around the Island. 5.7 In light of the above, it is clearly potentially acceptable to have a limited gym business operating from a residential property, with acceptability being dependant on the detail of the individual case. Therefore in broad terms the principle of the proposal at this scale is potentially acceptable.
5.8 The shed is akin to what could be erected under the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012, therefore if not used to run a business something similar c ould potentially be erected anyway. The weight that should be attached to this 'fall back' position depends on the likelihood of it being taken up, and it is considered not unreasonable to expect there to be a shed in a domestic garden.
5.9 When looking at proposals where the applicants are proposing to work from home one of the main aspects is whether there is an impact on the neighbouring amenities.
5.10 Clay Head Road can be characterised as large detached dwellings in large plots, whilst the houses along Clay Head Close are closer together and in less large plots the same basis applies and due to the topography and location within Baldrine the setting itself has a certain level of tranquillity. This was especially apparent during my site visit where the cul-de-sac had the character of being within the countryside.
5.11 It is worth noting at this point that from around January 2020 to when the application was submitted, the applicant was doing classes from the site on a one on one basis and group classes which were based within the gym and outside in the applicant's rear garden which could potentially have created a noise nuisance to the neighbouring properties. The difference between what the applicants were doing during the previous months and what the applicant is proposing within this application is that the applicants have requested only for one to one classes with no group classes.
5.12 When looking at the proposed gym it is within an already existing shed which is situated to the rear of the property, adjacent to the boundary fence of Mouette, Clay Head Road away from the main properties of Mouette and Garwick. The Planning Committee thought that the issues with regards to noise disturbance would be minimal due to the position of the shed and the additional mitigation that the applicant had provided such as adding gym flooring.
5.13 Concern was raised during the Planning Committee to the parking provisions which were available at the site, with comments being raised. The Planning Committee requested additional information regarding parking standards and the parking provisions within the application site, and the usability of such provisions.
5.14 The Planning Committee felt that the existing car parking on site was sufficient enough for the property and any clients to the proposed gym with the applicants parking on top of the existing concrete plinth. Whilst Highway Services raised the issue that this parking might not be safe the Planning Committee came to the reasoning that as a home owner you learn how to park within the spaces given and that this would leave one small space and one large space in front of the garage available for clients.
6.1 Whilst concern was raised within several areas during the Planning Committee meeting, after discussions and the representation from the applicant's spokesperson it was deemed that the issues raised are outweighed by the health and economic benefits of the application.
6.2 In considering the conditions to be attached to a business at home it is necessary to balance the need to protect local amenity and to prevent the growth/intensification of the business beyond what would be appropriate in the; the need to avoid an undue level of scrutiny within a residential property; and the realistic prospect of conditions being able to be monitored and enforced. In many cases the acceptability of the impact on the area is dependent on the detail of the proposal and it is unlikely that another party would wish to purchase the house and run the same business in the same way.
6.3 In light of the above, many home businesses have had conditions which make the approval personal to the applicant whilst they reside at the property and prevent the employment of any other
11 January 2021
Page 7 of 9
staff members. In this case conditions have also been attached in relation to some of the other detailed matters to respond to the concerns raised by neighbours and the Local Authority.
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 matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4): "Mouette," Clay Head Road as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (January 2020).
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person as they do not satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.
Snaefell, Clay Head Close Woodlea, Clay Head Close Green Oak, Baldrine Pine Lodge, Clay Head Road Jubilee House, Clay Head Road Lindholme Lodge, Clay Head Road Garwick, Clay Head Road Garden House, Clay Head Road Ramillies, Clay Head Road Crag Lea, Clay Head Road Moose Lodge, Clay Head Road Geay Varrey, Clay Head Road Cornerstones, 1 Hillcroft Rise, Douglas The Vickerage, Willow Lane, Eairy 36 Westbourne Drive, Douglas Shonest Farm, Baldrine Road Corley Rock, South Cape, Laxey 2 Manor View, Farmhill 40 Springfield Avenue, Spring Valley, Douglas 19 St Catherine's Drive, Douglas 32A Ard Reayrt, Laxey Ashton, 130 Royal Avenue, Onchan 16 Raad Bridjeen, Reayrt Ny Cronk 8 Robert Stephen Close, Douglas 14 Windermere Avenue, Onchan The Winnats, Woodlands Avenue, Douglas 13 Barrule Drive, Onchan 49 Royal Park, Ramsey 82 Keppel Road, Douglas 93 Hillside Avenue, Douglas
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.
The use hereby approved shall only be undertaken between 08:00 and 20:00 on weekdays and 09:00 and 12:00 on Saturdays. The use shall not be undertaken at any time on Sundays or Public Holidays.
Reason: To ensure that the development is undertaken in accordance with the application details and in the interest of protecting neighbouring living conditions.
There must be no more than one customer/client using the gym at any one time.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety and residential amenity.
The main driveway and access shall be kept available and unobstructed for visitor parking at all times during which the development hereby approved is in operation.
Reason: To ensure construction of a satisfactory access and in the interests of highway safety.
The use approved shall only be for the benefit of Christine Barker while in full time residence at the application site. Should the use cease or should Christine Barker no longer be full time resident, the gym must be restored to its previous use.
Reason: The development hereby approved is only acceptable in this location because of the special circumstance of the applicant and their small scale business.
The area of the building to be used for personal training service shall be limited to the rear summerhouse and the use hereby permitted shall not extend into any other part of the premises.
Reason: To minimise the disturbance to adjacent residential occupiers and to protect the residential character of the locality.
11 January 2021
Page 9 of 9
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown