Officer Report 11/01166/B

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:325415}}

Officer's Report

The Site

1. The application site represents the residential curtilage of an existing detached dwelling located on the south side of the A7 Main Road, The Level, Colby. The front elevation of the dwelling is that of a traditional style Manx property with two storeys, three bays, a central door, a pitched roof and chimney stacks at both gable ends. The ground level of the site slopes down from the front into the rear garden and at the rear of the house there is an additional storey at lower ground floor level. Also at the rear is a three storey extension at a right angle to the main body of the house, giving the property a T-shape.

1. In addition to the dwelling, the site includes a small front garden area, a driveway and garage to the western side of the house and a grassed rear garden. The change in ground level between the front and the rear is noticeable on the driveway, as it slopes down towards the garage. There is parking for two vehicles on the driveway and a single vehicle within the garage. The existing garage is single storey in height with a pitched roof over. Its external measurements are 4.9 metres long by 3.1 metres wide and it abuts the stone and brick wall on the western boundary of the site.

The Proposal

1. Proposed is the erection of a detached garage and workshop to replace the existing garage. They would be located along the western boundary of the site at the rear of the main house.

1. The front of the replacement garage would be positioned in the same place as the front of the existing, so the existing parking for two vehicles on the driveway would be retained. The garage would be 10 metres long by 3.9 metres wide, so it would have two parking spaces inside. The workshop would adjoin the rear of the garage and measure 4.7 metres long by 2.7 metres wide.

1. On the eastern corner, the height of the proposed garage would be 2.8 metres high to eaves level and 4.3 metres high to the top of the roof pitch. The workshop has the same eaves level as the proposed garage, but would be 400mm lower overall, due to its narrower width. These heights are greater than the existing garage, which is approximately 2.1 metres to eaves level and 3.2 metres to the top of the roof pitch.

1. The external finishes of the garage and workshop include dark grey slate roofs, smooth painted rendered walls, timber double doors to workshop and white upvc windows, fascias, gutters and rain water pipes.

Planning History

1. The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:

1. 08/02015/B – Refused 08/12/08, Appeal Withdrawn 24/04/09

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of two semi detached dwellings with associated parking

R1. The proposed dwelling would represent a poor replication of the traditional property which is being replaced and the other buildings alongside it. The cottages in the row have regular lines of windows in each floor - the proposed dwelling has two sizes of window in the upper floor and a wider porch than is generally the case for traditional properties. The inclusion of toilets within the front porch structure is not likely to be particularly pleasant for the occupants of the proposed properties as the windows serving these rooms are immediately adjacent to the footway. The roof of the property is to be finished in a material that is not slate, thus not sympathetic to the streetscene and the inclusion of overhanging eaves without the kneeler stones of the adjacent properties nor dentilled cornicing on the existing property and roofing which extends beyond the gable walls, all represent features which are not found on the traditional properties alongside.

R2. The inclusion of balconies and the increase in the number of dwellings and therefore occupants of the buildings on the site will result in opportunities for overlooking and perceptions of being overlooked from the properties to the rear, opportunities and perceptions which do not presently exist.

R3. The arrangements for parking and access are inadequate to serve two properties: the access does not provide for two vehicles to pass and the parking spaces are tandem spaces with inadequate space for vehicles to turn, thus resulting in considerable movement and thus potentially nuisance for those in Stone House from vehicles driving and potentially reversing up and down the access road to get in and out of the site and potential for confusion and detriment to road safety when an emerging vehicle may meet one trying to access the site.

R4. It is considered that the site is not of a sufficient size to satisfactorily accommodate two dwellings with the required access and parking.

R5. The proposed building is deeper than the existing and as such the longer western gable and greater massing come much closer to Stone House than does the existing and as such is likely to dominate the rear of this property and adversely affect the light and outlook therefrom.

R6. The application contains insufficient information to demonstrate the full impact of the dwelling in terms of any reference or information relating to the existing building and no information or drawings of the other properties in the streetscene or to the rear which are considerably lower than the application building.

1. 09/00195/R – Permitted 08.04.09

Installation of replacement windows

1. 09/00314/R – Permitted 24.04.09

Window / door alterations, render work and erection of a boundary wall

Development Plan Policies

1. The application site is located within an area designated as Predominantly Residential Use on the Arbory and East Rushen Local Plan Order 1998. The site is also designated as Predominantly Residential Use on the Modified Draft Area Plan for the South (January 2011), although this plan has not yet been finalised or adopted.

1. The relevant planning policy from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 is General Policy 2, which 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;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (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;
• (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;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
• (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
• (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

Consultations

1. The Department of Infrastructure's Highways Division do not object to this application, as there are no traffic management, parking or road safety implications.
2. The Drainage Division of the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority do not object to the proposal, subject to the condition that no surface water is discharged to any foul drainage system, so as to comply with their requirements and the Sewerage Act 1999.
3. Rushen Parish Commissioners have no objections to the application. They note that the neighbour has concerns about the height of the proposal and they will be making their views known to the Planning Authority.

Representations

1. The owner and occupier of Lindisfarne, Croit-e-Caley, Colby objects to the proposal. They share a common boundary with the western part of the application site. Their reasons for objection can be summarised as follows:

a. They are concerned that the height of the garage and workshop would create an overwhelming mass which would block out light to their property and overhang their garden. They suggest re-siting the building within the rear garden where it would not cause loss of light or inconvenience to anyone. b. They are concerned that the proposed building would have a cavity wall construction. They state that accessing the garage is a hazardous manoeuvre, as vehicles have to reverse from a busy main road over a pavement and down a steep slope. They believe that the occupier has land available for parking two cars side by side on land to the north east of the property. c. Concerns were raised about access during the assessment of a previous planning application (08/02015/B). This was due to vehicles not being able to enter and leave the site in a forward gear and being restricted by no passing places and no turning, which would be detrimental to road safety.

d. The objector states that they are concerned about the motive for the erection of a building of this substantial structure.

Assessment

1. Due to the land use zoning of the site and the nature of this proposal, the main issues in the consideration of this planning application are the impact on neighbouring properties, the impact on the surrounding area in general and highway matters.

Impact on neighbouring properties:

1. The owner and resident of the adjacent dwelling to the west of the site (Lindisfarne) has objected to this application. Their main concern is that the size, design and location of the proposed building would result in loss of light to the rear of their property.

1. As part of my assessment of this planning application, I visited the site and the neighbouring property on 02.09.11. Lindisfarne is a detached bungalow which is enclosed by other properties to the front and rear and has no direct access onto a public highway. The front of the property is accessed through a courtyard area where adjacent properties front onto and there is garaging and parking. In my opinion, this layout has resulted in the main outlook of the property being to the rear, facing towards the application site.

1. There is an existing stone and brick boundary wall between the two properties which is over 2 metres tall. In addition to this, the existing 4.9 metre long garage abuts part of the boundary and is taller than the wall, due to its pitched roof.

1. The proposed garage would be approximately 5.1 metres longer than the existing and 1.1 metres taller. The proposed workshop would extend the built up structure by a further length of 4.7 metres and be approximately 700mm taller than the existing garage. This would result in the entire boundary to the rear or eastern side of Lindisfarne being built up higher than it is at present.

1. When inside Lindisfarne, it is noted that the outlook from the openings on the rear elevation is currently limited by the existing boundary wall. The existing garage is not positioned directly in front of these openings, although the proposed building would be. It is therefore judged that the proposed building would further restrict Lindisfarne's outlook, due to its height, length and position. It is felt that the increased height of the proposed building would harm the existing outlook and natural light to the rear of Lindisfarne to an unacceptable degree.

1. As the proposed structure would be located to the east of Lindisfarne, any loss of direct sunlight would be restricted to mornings and would not be adverse enough to warrant refusal of this application. The concern of the proposal relates to loss of outlook and daylight, which is different to direct sunlight.

1. From visiting the site, it appears that the existing boundary wall between the application site and Lindisfarne is taller than it is shown on the drawings. The proposed drawing shows the boundary wall on the western elevation as being approximately 2 metres tall, but whilst on site I measured part of it as being approximately 2.4 metres tall. I have asked the agent whether this means that the boundary wall would be altered by the proposal, but no response has been received. As I am unconvinced that the height of the boundary wall is shown correctly in the drawings, this has made it difficult to be certain how much taller the proposed building would be compared to the existing situation. Therefore, I have compared the height of the proposed building to the height of the existing garage where necessary, rather than the height of the boundary wall.

1. I wrote to the agent to make them aware of the objection from the neighbour and the concerns of the Planning Authority. They were given an opportunity to amend the proposal so that the building was re-sited or reduced in size, but no amendments have been submitted.

Therefore, for reasons stated earlier in this report, it is considered that the impact of the proposal would adversely affect the occupiers of Lindisfarne and would warrant refusal of the application.

Impact on the surrounding area in general:

1. Although the proposed building would be publicly visible when passing the site, as it would be located to the rear of the dwelling it is judged that would not be overly dominant or harmful to the streetsceene.

1. Although the building would be larger than the existing garage, the overall style would reflect that of a garage and workshop and it is considered that it would be acceptable within the rear of the site.

Highway matters:

1. The objector is concerned that the access to the garage is hazardous, as vehicles have to reverse from a busy road over a pavement and down a steep slope. However, the Planning Authority notes that this planning application would not alter the existing access, the existing parking on the driveway or the location of the garage door.

1. In terms of car parking, the proposal would create an additional off-street space, so there would be a total of four spaces. Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 requires dwellings to have two off-street parking spaces, so the proposal would comply with this.

1. Concerns were raised about access to the site during the assessment of a previous planning application (08/02015/B). This previous application was for the erection of two dwellings on the site, so the highway concerns were due to the requirements of two dwellings sharing a single access and do not relate to the existing access for a single dwelling.

1. The objector states that there is land available to park two cars to the north-east of the dwelling. This land is not included within the red line and from looking at the planning history of the site, the last time this land was included within the red line was for PA 08/02015/B. There have been two subsequent planning applications since then (PA's 09/00195/R and 09/00314/R) and this area was not included within the red line. It is therefore assumed that this land is no longer associated with the dwelling. I have asked the agent to clarify this matter but no response has been received.

1. Due to the fact that the proposal would not alter the existing access or result in an adverse reduction of off-street car parking, it is considered that the impact on highways would be acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION

1. For the above reasons relating to the impact on neighbouring properties, this proposal is considered to be unacceptable and is recommended for refusal.

PARTY STATUS

1. It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, should be afforded interested party status:

• Rushen Parish Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.

• The owner of Lindisfarne owns and resides in land or buildings which physically adjoin the application site, so should be afforded party status in this instance.

1. It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, should not be afforded interested party status:

• The Department of Transport Highways Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
• The Drainage Division of the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority have not commented on material planning considerations, so should not be afforded party status in this instance.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 17.10.2011

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals

R 1.

The proposed development be contrary to General Policy 2 part g of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, as it would result in loss of outlook and daylight to the rear of the adjacent dwelling Lindisfarne, which would adversely affect the amenity of this dwelling to an unacceptable degree.

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager.

Decision Made : Refused Date : 20/10/11

Signed : Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control

OR Signed Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager