Appeal No: AP12/0084 Application No: 12/00675/B

Report on Inquiry into Planning Appeal

Inquiry held on: 25 September 2012 Site Inspection held on: 24 September 2012

Appeal by: Mr and Mrs Clague against approval granted to Mr and Mrs Alessandro Spadoni for the erection of a replacement garage at Thie Vane, Truggan Road, Port St Mary, Isle of Man IM9 5AX.

Present: Appellant: Mr J Clague Planning Authority: Miss L Davy Person Observing: Miss C A Webb

Introduction

1. This report provides brief descriptions of the appeal site and its surroundings; the proposal which is subject to the appeal; background information and relevant policies. The cases for the appeal parties are then summarised, fuller details being available for reference in the documents on the case file. My assessment, conclusions and recommendation follow.

Site and surroundings

2. The appeal site is in Port St Mary and lies within the curtilage of 'Thie Vane' which is on the south side of Truggan Road. The site spans across from Truggan Road in the north to Howe Road in the south. There is an existing two-car, flat-roofed garage (shown as being around 5.5m x 5m on drawing 1151-1 Existing Plan) on the land and this is accessed from the southern end of the site from Howe Road. There is off-road parking on a driveway to the front of the garage.

3. The Appellants occupy the adjacent property to the west which is at a higher level and is named 'Kionslieu'. It is a detached property and is positioned approximately 6m from the shared boundary. The main living room and bedroom windows of the dwelling look out towards and over the existing flat-roofed garage to Port St Mary and the coastline beyond.

Proposed Development

4. The proposed replacement garage (shown as being approximately 6m x 7m on drawing 1151-2, As Proposed) would be larger in floor area than the existing but would be in roughly the same position. It is shown as a single storey structure with a pitched, modern-tiled roof (north south pitch); double roller-shutter door facing Howe Road; roof lights in the north and south roof slopes; a pedestrian door on the east elevation; a window in the north elevation and smooth, rendered, painted walls. According to the submitted drawings the new garage would be approximately 1.3m higher that the existing. The existing concrete driveway would be removed and replaced with block paviour sets.

Background information and relevant policies

5. There are no previous planning applications relating to the site which are considered by the planning authority to be material to this application/appeal.

6. The site is in an area which is zoned as being of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (HLCVSS) as identified in the 1982 Development Plan. In the Modified Draft Southern Area Plan (MDSAP) the site is zoned as 'Predominantly Residential' and so given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider it in relation to General Policy 2 (GP2) and Environment Policy 2 (EP2) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 (IOMSP).

Case for the Planning Authority

7. The gist of the case for the planning authority is as follows:

• The existing garage is in a prominent position and is unattractive. The replacement garage will enhance the appearance of the site and would contribute more positively to the character and appearance of the area.
• In terms of Environment Policy 2 the replacement garage would not harm the character and quality of the landscape.
• Although the site is not zoned residential in the 1982 Development Plan, (because it lies within the HLCVSS), the MDSAP, even though not yet adopted, should be afforded weight and the site is shown as being 'Predominantly Residential'.
• General Policy 2 has been considered and there would be no undue overlooking or loss of privacy caused to the occupiers of 'Kionslieu'.
• The proposed garage would not have an overbearing effect on the neighbouring property and overall it is not considered that the proposed garage would detrimentally affect any of the living conditions of the occupiers of 'Kionslieu'.
• The proposal accords with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 2.

Case for the Appellants

8. The gist of the case for the appellants is as follows:

• The proposed garage does not accord with the policy for development within the HLCVSS.
• Other nearby developments do not enhance the area and neither will this particular proposal.
• There is doubt that the applicant's high vehicle will fit into the garage due to the height of the roller shutter door.
• The existing garage is finished with natural materials and is quite unobtrusive. The replacement would not be so.
• It is not understood why the Highways Department has been involved since the entrance from the road already exists.
• However, the road is narrow and most cars straddle the white line. The road is well used and there is no footway. There has been one fatality and many collisions, mostly against the wall of 'Kionslieu'.
• The assessment by the planning authority does not consider the impact that the proposal would have on the surrounding area. Other people do not concur with the authority's opinion.
• The pitched roof of the garage would deprive the occupants at 'Kionslieu' of some light from the rising sun.
• The shared wall between the properties has had the earth beneath the foundations exposed to a depth of 25 cm and around 80 cm of soil was taken away before the garage was built.
• The submitted photographs illustrate points made in support of the appeal.

Case for the Applicants

9. The gist of the case for the applicants is as follows:

• The replacement garage has been designed with a pitched roof and with a view to having the lowest possible impact on the occupants at 'Kionslieu'.
• Another flat roof would not have been appropriate and the final design is oriented with the gable facing 'Kionslieu' to minimise the visual impact.
• The low pitch is a major compromise and a steeper pitch would have been preferable in relation to storage space.
• 'Kionslieu' is elevated beyond the appeal site and the occupants enjoy fantastic views. The proposal will have only a minor impact to one side of the building closest to the road.
• The amenities of the neighbours have been respected but the 'right to a view' is questioned and there will be no effect on the light to 'Kionslieu'.
• The flat roof has been cited as having a negative effect on 'Thie Vane' and has affected its saleability. The proposal is a much more suitable structure.
• The occupants at 'Kionslieu' rejected an offer to exchange land in relation to a mutually beneficial proposal.

Other Parties

10. The Port St Mary Commissioners make no objections to the proposed garage and the Highways Division recommends approval and does not consider that it would have any adverse traffic management, parking or road safety implications. During the Inquiry the appellant stated that the Commissioners' view had changed since their meeting. However, clarification was sought as to their current position and, whilst there was some sympathy for the appellant's situation, the Clerk to Commissioners has confirmed (26 September 2012) that they could not offer any objection to the application.

Assessment and Conclusions

11. The main issues are: firstly the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of this part of Port St Mary and, secondly, its effect on the living conditions of the occupants of the adjacent property at 'Kionslieu'.

12. On the first issue and despite the appellants' views that the existing structure is acceptable in terms of character and appearance, I consider that the flat roofed garage is unattractive and obtrusive. Having viewed the site from both near and distant viewpoints, I share the planning authority view that the proposed garage would improve the appearance of the locality and that it would contribute more positively to the character and appearance of this part of the HLCVSS. The form, scale and materials of the proposal are acceptable and the overall visual effect would be an improvement on the existing situation. In this respect therefore, the proposal would accord with Policy EP2 and would not harm the character and quality of the landscape. I also agree with the authority that, given the nature of the application on an existing residential site, it is appropriate to give weight to the MDSAP which zones the area as 'Predominantly Residential'.

13. Turning to the second issue I do not consider that the proposal would result in any undue impact on the occupants at 'Kionslieu'. The new garage would be over 6 m from the frontage of this neighbouring property and would have a much lower finished floor level. Although around 1.3 m higher (at its highest point - the ridge), the new garage would not have an overbearing effect and nor would it affect the privacy of the occupants at 'Kionslieu'. There may well be some difference in the viewing of (and effect of) the rising sun to the east but the natural light reaching the property would hardly change due to the respective levels of the adjacent sites.

14. There would be some loss of view from the windows in 'Kionslieu' and the sloping roof pitch would be noticeable. However, I do not consider that the impact would be as great as suggested by the appellants. Having looked out across the landscape from the lobby of 'Kionslieu' I consider the loss of view would be restricted to roofscapes in the near and middle distances and that views out to the sea and the coast would, on the whole, be unaffected. But, in any case, there is no right to a view in a planning context and nor is the impact on financial values of properties a material consideration. I consider, therefore, that the proposal also accords with Policy GP3 and that the living conditions of the occupants at 'Kionslieu would not be unduly affected by this particular proposal.

15. In conclusion I consider that the decision to grant planning permission is sound; that all of the relevant material planning considerations have been taken into account by the planning authority and that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its effect on the character and appearance of the area as well as in relation to its effect on the living conditions of the occupants at 'Kionslieu'.

16. I do, however, consider planning conditions are necessary. In addition to the two suggested conditions, I consider that a condition restricting the height of the new garage is also necessary and appropriate. This is because, although the proposed dimensions could be scaled, the submitted drawings do not specifically indicate the height of the garage to its ridge and any change in height or pitch could affect the final appearance and its impact on residential amenity.

17. During the Inquiry it was agreed that the submitted drawings indicated a height difference of around 1.3 m between the existing flat roof and the ridge of the new garage. The third condition should, therefore, state that 'No part of the building hereby approved shall exceed more than 1.3 m above the height of the flat roof of the existing garage and all existing and proposed dimensions should be agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to any works commencing. The works hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with these agreed dimensions and the submitted drawings'.

Recommendation.

18. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed and that the decision of the planning authority is upheld subject to the suggested conditions in the planning officer report dated 12 July 2012 and the additional condition as set out in paragraph 17 above.

Apprinter

Anthony J Wharton BArch RIBA RIAS MRTPI Inspector