Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/00178/CON Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/00178/CON Applicant : Mr John Morris Proposal : Registered Building Consent for conversion of existing garage/store area into additional ground floor living accommodation (RB no 203 in association with 16/00177/GB) Site Address : The Old Sail Loft Shore Road Underway Port St. Mary Isle of Man IM9 5DX
Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 22.06.2016 Site Visit : 22.06.2016 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE
THE SITE 1.1 The site is the curtilage of an existing building, The Old Sail Loft, which is registered (RB 203) and situated on the landward side of Shore Road underway between a new dwelling which is also in the ownership of the applicant, and another residential property attached to the west - 22, Shore Road Underway.
1.2 The building has been the subject of a number of proposals for alterations and extensions, including PAs 12/01567/B and 1568/CON and PA 15/00893/B and 15/00894/CON which proposed a first floor extension to provide a conservatory.
1.3 The applicant has recently erected a gate and posts midway between the garage and the highway in order to provide a secure environment for their recently acquired dog. This provides just over 4m between the garage and the gate and insufficient space in which a vehicle could be parked and the doors opened inwards as shown on the drawing, and 5m between the gate and the highway.
1.4 The fence would arguably need approval under the Registered Building regulations as the gate and fence are attached to the Registered Building. However it is unlikely that this would be considered unacceptable in terms of its impact on the Registered Building and in any case, if the gate and fence were unattached to the RB by moving it minimally away, then it would not require approval and could be erected without planning approval under the terms of the Permitted Development Order. The concern in this respect is that the gate and fence further reduce the availability of parking spaces to serve the building, which is not a concern for the Registered Building regulations.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the conversion of the ground floor of the later extension to the Old Sail Loft to a living room involving the replacement of the existing garage door with patio doors. An existing internal window between the existing garage and the new living room will be replaced by a door, giving access through the garage to the main part of the Old Sail Loft. There is no access directly
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/00178/CON Page 2 of 5
between floors of the garage structure with conservatory above. The floor area of the garage is around 16 sq m. There is a length of private driveway in front of the existing garage of 9.2m.
2.2 The applicant clarifies that the garage has never been used for the storage of a motor vehicle since its construction following approval in 2008 and that the small windows in the existing ground floor studio and bedroom rooms in the Old Sail Loft face into the courtyard which makes the rooms small and a little claustrophobic. The new patio doors will allow the ground floor living space to be brighter and with a better aspect, albeit across the driveway. They also suggest that the works are reversible and should a future owner wish to convert the room back to a garage, this could be done with minimal change to the building nd no changes to the Registered Building.
PLANNING STATUS AND POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 as Mixed Use. The site also lies within a proposed Conservation Area. The accompanying appraisal refers to the Old Sail Loft only in respect of it being one of only two Registered Buildings in the village. The Shore Road Underway is similarly not specifically identified for discussion.
3.2 Environment Policies 32 and 35 both require that special care is taken with applications for changes to Registered Buildings and buildings within Conservation Areas to ensure that their special qualities are not damaged. This is also echoed in Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man.
3.3 The Strategic Plan requires there to be two parking spaces provided for every dwelling:
Appendix 7: "New built residential development should be provided with two parking spaces per dwelling, at least one of which should be within the curtilage of the dwelling and behind the front of the dwelling, although the amount and location of parking will vary in respect of development such as terracing, apartments, and sheltered housing. In the case of town centre and previously developed sites, the Department will consider reducing this requirement having regard to: a) the location of the housing relative to public transport, employment and public amenities, b) the size of the dwelling, c) any restriction on the nature of the occupancy (such as sheltered housing) and d) the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area (paragraph A.7.1). This goes on to recommend that one space is provided for a one bedroomed apartment, 2 spaces for two or more bedrooms but that "These standards may be relaxed where development: a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape, or c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality" (A.7.6).
3.4 Transport Policy 6 states: in the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users."
REPRESENTATIONS 4.1 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services object to the application on the basis that in accordance with Manx Roads off road car parking spaces need to meet the requirement of 6 x 3.25 metres, 12 metres is the required length for two vehicles, applicant can only provide 9.4 metres. By converting the garage in to additional living accommodation we are reducing two useable off road parking spaces to one. This area is significantly used by walkers, and over the last few years has been developed, increasing the number of vehicles that park not within their curtilage but on the Underway itself which is causing obstructions for pedestrians (23.02.16).
4.2 Following the receipt of further information from the applicant, Department of Infrastructure Highway Services add when permission was sought for the garage PA 08/00716/GB the applicant's justification for the works was "Due to the exposed location of the site, directly off the shoreline, it would be reasonable and desirable to expect where possible at least one covered garage facility for
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/00178/CON Page 3 of 5
the safe parking of a vehicle away from the worst of the elements and sea spray. The garage is also necessary to provide additional storage and security for such things as bicycles and ladders etc; as there is no other provision for storage within the building. It is also felt that the facility to remove such 'clutter' from view is important to maintain the appearance of the Sail Loft." Highways did not oppose this application as the dwelling would have 2 parking spaces in accordance with the requirements of the Strategic plan. There has been no change in circumstances, either an increase in car parking provision or storage space, and Highways oppose the permanent removal of a parking facility that was only recently required. The current use as a storage facility does not prevent future use as garaging for a vehicle as originally intended.
4.3 The length of the proposed driveway is insufficient for parking 2 cars; the absolute minimum length for a car parking space is 4.8m and therefore if 2 cars are parked a length of 9.6m is required to prevent cars obstructing the highway. The proposed living room has its only window and an access door leading directly onto the driveway, experience has demonstrated that vehicles will be parked some distance from a door to permit access and from a window to prevent the view from being blocked; therefore the practical distance available to park vehicles is reduced.
4.4 A car parked on a driveway requires a distance of 6m beyond its length to manoeuvre onto the highway, at this location the highway varies from 4.5m to 5.4m in width making access onto the highway more difficult if 2 cars are parked. Shore Road Underway is a lightly trafficked road with pedestrians and vehicles sharing the space; a vehicle overhanging the road at this location will reduce the available road width for pedestrians and vehicles to pass and also for 2 vehicles to pass each other. Alternatively a second vehicle will be parked on the road. The existing situation meets all the requirements of the Strategic Plan in terms of GP 2 (h) & (i) however the proposal fails to meet these requirements.
4.5 Port St. Mary Commissioners object to the application (08.03.16). They are concerned that there are inaccuracies in the plans with the conservatory now a kitchen and wonder whether planning approval is required for this. They are also concerned that the Old Smithy is now a separate dwelling with its own post box and access. They also wonder about the benefit of the proposal given the majority of floorspace remaining in the main building and are concerned about the implications for car parking particularly as the area is congested.
PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 Planning approval was granted for the erection of a dwelling to the north of the application site and this has been implemented. This is a modern building but following the profile of the Old Sail Loft but importantly projects out as far as does the Old Sail Loft, leaving the garage and the proposed extension some 9m recessed from the front of both the Old Sail Loft and the adjacent dwelling. This results in the structure not being visible until one passes the front of the building, other than from across the harbour, some 150m away.
5.2 The Old Sail Loft has also been the subject of numerous applications for alterations and extensions. The garage was approved under PA 08/00716/GB and 08/00717/CON and the conservatory added on top under PAs 12/01567/B and 1568/CON and PA 15/00893/B and 15/00894/CON.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues in this case are whether the physical works to the building would result in any adverse impact on the character and appearance of the building, particularly bearing in mind that The Old Sail Loft is Registered, and also whether the loss of car parking would result in any highway safety issues.
6.2 In terms of visual impact, the garage is set well back from the highway and whilst visible, is not a prominent part of the building. As such, and considering the design of the proposed works, it is not considered that what is proposed has an adverse visual impact on the appearance and character of the area or either adjacent buildings.
==== PAGE 4 ====
16/00178/CON Page 4 of 5
6.3 The position with respect to highways and car parking is less clear. Whilst the existing garage may well be used as store and not for the parking of vehicles, it remains a 5m long space in which a vehicle could be parked. The remaining space forward of the garage is only 9.2m long which is short of the required length to park two full length vehicles (a minimum of 10m), exacerbated by the presence of a window which may result in vehicles being parked a little distance from that, further reducing the available parking space, and as a result, it is possible if not likely that vehicles will park either overhanging or on the highway in front of the site. In some areas on street car parking is acceptable and can be accommodated without any adverse impact on highway safety or the convenience of other road users. However, in this case, Shore Road Underway and Shore Road are narrow and winding along a lot of their length and generally unsuited to on street car parking. They are also used by walkers and with no dedicated footway, this makes the provision of a safe highway all the more important.
6.4 The introduction of the gate and fence makes the situation a little more complicated in that if the gates are to be closed, the space between the garage and the gate and fence could not be used for car parking as the gates cannot operate and in any case the applicant has indicated that he wishes his dog to be able to be here without being able to escape. This makes the garage even more important to be retained as a parking space.
6.4 For the above reason, the proposal is considered to be unacceptable and the application is recommended for refusal.
PARTY STATUS 7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, 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, in this case Department of Infrastructure Highway Services and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT The Planning Committee considered the application at its meeting of 4th July, 2016 where the application was refused. The Committee was advised that applications for Registered Building consent should only be assessed in respect of the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the Registered Building and as such, recommended reason 1 for refusal was deleted.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 24.06.2016
==== PAGE 5 ====
16/00178/CON Page 5 of 5
R 1. The lack of adequate parking provision could result in vehicles overhanging the highway and/or a greater incidence of parking on the highway, both of which would have an adverse visual impact on the character and appearance of the Registered Building.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made :Refused.
Committee Meeting Date: 04.07.2016
Signed : S E Corlett Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See supplementary report above
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