Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/01188/B
Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/01188/B Applicant : Mr Paul Marriott & Mrs Lana Marriott Proposal : Erection of a detached garage Site Address : Wood Lea Gordon Lane Gordon Peel Isle of Man IM5 3AS
Case Officer : Miss Melissa McKnight Photo Taken : 05.11.2015 Site Visit : 05.11.2015 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NUMBER OF OBJECTIONS RECEIVED AND NUMBER OF THOSE RECOMMENDED FOR INTERESTED PERSON STATUS.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Wood Lea, a two storey detached dwelling located to the south east of the A27, Gordon, Peel.
1.2 The application site is accessed via a single track, Gordon Farm Lane. The lane serves a number of properties and a farm holding.
1.3 To the rear of the site is a small watercourse that has not been designated as a river. The application site sits directly to the east of the lane with the remaining front boundary to the garden comprising fencing, hedging and other vegetation.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The current planning application seeks approval for the erection of a single storey detached garage that would measure 6.5 x 5 metres. The garage would have a pitched roof with a ridge height of just less than 5 metres. There would also be an area of hardstanding to the front of the garage.
2.2 The garage would be finished in a self-coloured smooth render with interlocking tiles to the roof to match the main dwellinghouse.
2.3 The proposal would result in the loss of two trees to the north west of the application site.
3.0 PLANING HISTORY
3.1 In 2005 under PA 04/02586/B, planning approval was granted for the conversion of existing garage to additional living accommodation.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/01188/B
Page 2 of 8
4.1 The application site lies within an area zoned as part Woodland and part Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance under the 1982 Isle of Man Development Plan. The site also lies within the Glen Maye Road Registered Tree Area.
4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains five policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
General Policy 3: Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10) b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historical, or social value and interest (Housing Policy 11) c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of buildings where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environmental and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14) e) location-dependant development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative and h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."
Environment Policy 1 states: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."
Environment Policy 2 which states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape of Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce difference categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:
a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or b) the location for the development is essential."
Environment Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value."
Environment Policy 7 states: "Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which would not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria:
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/01188/B
Page 3 of 8
a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality;
b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted;
c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and
d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Patrick Commissioners have no comment regarding the current planning application (17/11/2015).
5.2 The Department of Infrastructure Highway Services do not oppose the current planning application (02/11/2015).
5.3 The Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture (DEFA): Forestry, Amenity & Lands Directorate have advised in an email dated 30th October 2015 that one of the two trees to be felled is in a potentially unsafe condition and can see no reason to object to the proposal as it stands. However, DEFA further state that given the trees stand in what is deemed to be a registered area, it is recommended that all retained trees in the area of works and standing on Mr Anderson's land be protected using appropriate fencing in line with the crown spread of any tree during the course of works.
5.4 DEFA: Fisheries have reviewed the development within 9 metres of a watercourse and have confirmed in an email dated 30th October 2015 that Fisheries have no objections to the proposal from a Fisheries perspective, provided that there is no adverse effect on the adjacent watercourse. This is due to the nature of both the watercourse and the proposed works.
5.5 A representation has been received from the owner and/or occupier of Gordon Farm objecting to the planning application for the following reasons:
5.6 A representation has been received from the owner and/or occupier of Shilley-Mie objecting to the planning application for the same reasons as above (19/11/2015).
5.7 A representation has been received from the occupier of Gordon Farm and owner of Rose Cottage objecting to the planning application for the following reasons:
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/01188/B
Page 4 of 8
The development appears to show further encroachment into and narrowing Gordon Lane Farm which is the only road access to Gordon Farm;
5.8 A representation has been received from the owners of Jamf, who have raised concerns and objections to the planning application which have been summarised below:
5.9 In light of the above representations, the applicants' agent submitted further information to address the above concerns. This information will be summarised within the assessment below.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 Given the location of the application site and the development proposed, it is considered that there are two fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this current planning application;
6.2 The site is within an area which is not zoned for further development and whilst there are no policies in the Strategic Plan which relate specifically to the erection of garages, it is reasonable to expect a garage within the curtilage of a property. It should also be acknowledged that there is provision within the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 for the erection of a garage within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse.
6.3 Class 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 sets out the provisions for the erection of a private garage or car port within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse without the need to apply for planning permission. Class 17 states that there must only be one private garage or car port within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse; the eaves level must be no higher than 2.9 metres; the roof pitch must match that of the main dwellinghouse; the maximum width and length must not exceed 6 metres; no part of the garage or car port may project beyond the forward most part of the dwelling which fronts onto a highway; every part of the garage or car port must be a minimum of 6 metres from a highway including a rear or side lane; no part of the garage or car port may be within 1 metre of the boundary of the dwellinghouse; and if detached, the garage or car port must not be used for general living or sleeping purposes.
6.4 As the garage proposed under this scheme would have a length of 6.5 metres and would involve the felling of two trees, planning permission is required.
6.5 The garage would be 9 metres from the highway and would be visible from the highway, more so as one travels north along the A27 towards Peel. Distorted views of the garage would be attainable through existing vegetation as one travels south towards the site from Peel.
==== PAGE 5 ====
15/01188/B
Page 5 of 8
6.6 The garage proposed would introduce new built development within the area. Although this is the case, further south of the application is a row of residential properties that are sited almost directly on the highway. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, a garage within the curtilage of a residential property would not be unheard of and would certainly not appear incongruous within the particular setting of the application site. Whilst the garage would be sited 16.5 metres from the main dwelling, it is apparent that the garage would belong to Wood Lea by reason of the finish and existing boundary of the application site.
6.7 The overall design, form and appearance of the garage is simple and is not of a size that would appear overly prominent within the locality to the detriment that would harm the visual amenity of the area. It is for these reasons that, with regards to the impact of the garage upon the visual amenity of the area, the proposal is deemed acceptable.
6.8 As outlined under paragraph 4 of this report, the site lies within a Registered Tree Area, Glen Maye Road, and the proposal would result in the loss of two trees. The applicant's agent has stated that although the trees to be felled are outside the influence of the proposed garage, they are in very poor condition and any further deterioration and falling of limbs are likely to cause damage.
6.9 DEFA: Forestry, Amenity & Lands Directorate confirmed in an email dated 30th October 2015 that they can see no reason to object to the proposal as it stands. However, DEFA recommended that all retained trees in the area of works and within the applicants land be protected using appropriate fencing in line with the crown spread of any tree during the course of works.
6.10 The loss of the two trees is unfortunate; nevertheless there is existing planting within the area and within the curtilage of the application site that would remain. It is therefore considered that the loss of the two trees as indicated on the submitted drawings would not cause significant harm to the amenity of the area.
6.11 Turning to the impact upon highway safety, at present it would appear that the site can accommodate one single parking space in the location where the garage is proposed. From a site visit, and from representations received, it is evident that the existing laybys either side of Gordon Lane are used for parking by the residents of the properties along Gordon Lane.
6.12 The garage would not result in any loss of parking to Wood Lea by reason that the garage would be erected where there is an existing parking space. To ensure that the development would retain a parking space on site, it is felt necessary to add a condition to any approval, should it be granted, ensuring that the garage is used for the parking of vehicles in association with Wood Lea only. This would be added in the interest of highway safety and to reduce the demand for parking within the laybys.
6.13 When the application was originally submitted, it was proposed to plant a hedge either side of Gordon Lane. This element of the proposal resulted in a number of objections that were mainly concerned about the impact that the hedge would have on reducing the size of the laybys and upon visibility. In response to the objections made, the hedges were omitted from the scheme. The applicant's agent has stated in a letter dated 10th December 2015 that access to and the use of the layby will be unaffected by the proposed development. The red line as shown on the submitted drawings does not indicate an extension of the boundary of the property or a claim to ownership of the layby.
6.14 It is not considered that the proposed garage would impact upon highway safety or affect the flow of traffic along Gordon Lane. The applicant's agent also confirmed in the additional submitted letter that the red line outlining the application site is shown exactly the same on the submitted existing and proposed site plan drawings. The line was established by a detailed site survey of the existing lane. The applicant's agent has stated that the garage would be set back 2.7
==== PAGE 6 ====
15/01188/B
Page 6 of 8
metres from the lane and that there will be no encroachment onto the lane. It is also important to acknowledge that Highway Services do not oppose the current planning application.
7.0 OTHER MATTERS
7.1 Within the representations received, a number of concerns raised related to land ownership matters and whilst not a material planning consideration it is felt important to address. The red line indicates the application site, where all development is taking place, and does not indicate the boundary of Wood Lea. The red line includes the two trees to the north west of the site as their felling is part of this current application and therefore has to be included within the red line. The matters regarding the ownership of the laybys and Gordon Lane have been addressed above.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION
8.1 The development proposed is deemed acceptable and for the reasons set out above is not judged to result in a harmful visual impact or have an unacceptable affect upon highway safety or the use of Gordon Lane.
9.0 PARTY STATUS
9.1 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 considered material; (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
9.2 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.
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:
The owner and/or occupier of Gordon Farm;
The owner and/or occupier of Shilley-Mie; The occupier of Gordon Farm and owner of Rose Cottage; and The owners of Jamf.
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.
10.1 Ms Reid indicated that the wording of Condition 3 should refer to motor vehicles, not motor cars. Ms Reid further expanded that the garage should not be used for storage or ancillary accommodation. The wording of condition 3 to the following:
C 3. The garage hereby approved shall at all times be made available for the parking of private motor vehicle(s) in association with Wood Lea and shall be retained available for such use and should not be used for storage or ancillary accommodation.
==== PAGE 7 ====
15/01188/B
Page 7 of 8
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to provide adequate off-street parking.
10.2 The members of Planning Committee also requested a note be added to replace those trees to be removed and as such the following note has been attached:
N 2. The applicant is advised to liaise with Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture regarding the feasibility of planting additional trees to replace those to be felled.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 06.01.2016
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. No site works or clearance shall be commenced until protective fences which conform with British Standard 5837:2012 (or any British Standard revoking and re-enacting British Standard 5837:2012 with or without modification) have been erected around any existing trees and other existing or proposed landscape areas that are to be retained as shown on DRAWING No 10 date stamped 10th December 2015. Unless and until the development has been completed these fences shall not be removed and the protected areas are to be kept clear of any building, plant equipment, material, debris and trenching, with the existing ground levels maintained, and there shall be no entry to those areas except for approved arboricultural or landscape works.
Reason: To safeguard the areas to be landscaped and the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site.
C 3. The garage hereby approved shall at all times be made available for the parking of private motor vehicle(s) in association with Wood Lea and shall be retained available for such use and should not be used for storage or ancillary accommodation.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to provide adequate off-street parking.
N 1. The applicant is advised to liaise with the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture during the construction process with regards to the impact upon the adjacent watercourse.
==== PAGE 8 ====
15/01188/B
Page 8 of 8
N 2. The applicant is advised to liaise with Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture regarding the feasibility of planting additional trees to replace those to be felled.
This approval relates to DRAWING No 02 and 100 date stamped as received 27th October 2015, 01 REV A date stamped as received 6th November 2015 and 10 REV B date stamped as received 10th December 2015.
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 : Approved
Committee Meeting Date: 18.01.2016
Signed : M McKnight 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