DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 19/01034/B Applicant: Mr Jason Elliot Proposal: Erection of detached garage Site Address: The Studio 1 Church Close Lonan Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7JY Photo Taken: 03.10.2019 Site Visit: 03.10.2019 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.11.2019

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. The garage hereby approved shall be used for the parking of private vehicles and/or domestic storage only and shall not be used for the repair/maintenance of commercial vehicles or for storage of materials for any commercial purpose.

Reason: To safeguard the residential character and amenities of the area in accordance with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

• C 3. Within 3 months of the completion of the garage construction, the sedum roof proposed shall be planted as per the approved drawings and retained thereafter.

Reason: To minimise the visual impact of the building in accordance with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped received on 13th September:

• o 038 100 Location & Site Plan
• o 038 101 Proposed General Arrangement of Container Garage _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

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):

2 Church Close, Lonan

• 4 Church Close, Lonan

as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not 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):

15 Church Close, Lonan

as it is not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy, as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION AT THE REQUEST OF THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER.

1.0 SITE - 1.1 The application site represents the curtilage of an existing property, 1 Church Close, Lonan, Laxey. It is a rendered detached house that backs onto Church Road and is accessed by private access from Church Close shared with no 2 Church Close. - 1.2 Church Close is a cul-de-sac of 18 dwellings that were built in the late 1990s/early 2000s. On the opposite side of Church Road is All Saints Park another more modern development of a mix of house types.

2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a garage on the front garden of the property. The garage would be approximately 5m wide and 6.2m long and formed from two shipping containers welded together sitting on top of blockwork piers. It would be clad in cedar, with a double garage door to the front. The flat roof fibreglass roof would sit 2.7m above ground level at the front and 3.3m at the rear, and would be finished with topsoil and grass seed to create a planted roof. - 2.2 The garage would sit in the southern corner of the site adjacent to the fence boundary with the rear garden of 3 Church Close and the rear fencing of the site where it meets a steep grass bank down to Ballacannell. 6 of the 10 Leylandii tree row would be removed at the boundary to facilitate the proposal.

- 3.0 PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as being within predominantly residential use under the Laxey and Lonan Local Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area. - 3.2 General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan is relevant to the application and 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 convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space.

3.4 Whilst not planning policy, the Department's recently published Residential Design Guidance (March 2019) is referenced in this report and is capable of being a material consideration. - 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Since the dwelling was originally approved in 1998, there has been one planning application of material relevance, for the erection of a first floor extension and conversion of the build-in garage to living accommodation (16/01081/B) which was approved. - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

• 5.0.1 Full copies of consultations and representations are available online, the below are summaries.

5.1 DoI Highway Services do not oppose the application (03.10.19). - 5.2 Garff Commissioners object to the application stating that the members considered the visual impact this structure would have on the amenity of the Church Close area and the civil covenants which existed (20.10.19). - 5.3 A letter was received from 4 Church Close requesting that Garff Commissioners defer consideration of the application and noting that they would prepare an objection. (02.10.19). Subsequently, a full letter of objection was received (14.10.19) from No.4. the key points can be summarised thus:

• o The established character of Church Close has a uniform type of architectural style, each house has an attached garage set back from the main front elevation;
• o Front elevations have clear and open gardens with no garden walls;
• o There was no objection to the previous application on the site (16/0081/B);
• o Description of the proposal;
• o No details provided on height of garage relative to rear fence - calculated by objector as 1.55m above the height of the fence;
• o Footprint of garage would reduce the front garden by half and the outlook from the principle rooms at the front of the site dwelling;
• o Will interrupt and conflict with the existing street elevation as viewed from the primary road into Church Close, scale of the 3.6m garage door would detract from smaller garage doors on the Close;
• o Noise nuisance resulting from steel carcass of building;
• o No proposed use specified other than 'garage', as applicants principal business is in construction , assumed that container is required in connection with applicant's business and not for domestic/residential use;
• o Considered that the proposal not in compliance with class 5 of schedule 3 of TCP (PD) order 2012 or General Policy 2(g) of Strategic Plan, would inevitably give rise to a statutory nuisance;

• o General Policy 2 outlined;
• o Proposed garage does not respect the site and surroundings in Church Close in term of siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• o If approved will adversely affect defined character of the Close;
• o Loss of amenity space to the application site by reducing front garden by half;
• o If approved, request for condition to restrict to domestic/residential purposes.

5.4 An objection has been received from 2 Church Close (13.10.19), the points can be summarised as follows:

• o Container garage would be out of place with the surrounding area due to its materials;
• o Noise would be amplified in a residential area due to cars starting etc.;
• o Would be built over a rain run-off drain pipe;
• o Built within couple metres of sewage pipes;
• o Deeds of property state that no shed/greenhouse may be built forward of the front elevation
• of the property; o Concern over ulterior motive of applicant to use as storage for construction materials leading to increase in business traffic on a shared access and in a residential estate.

5.5 15 Church Close object to the application (21.10.19). The letter received expressed doubt over the use of the proposed building - stating that there is concern that it would be used for the purposes of a construction company, and noting that this would be contrary to the property deeds.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this application are the potential for impact on the visual character and appearance of the site and street scene, and on off-street parking availability.

6.2 Due to the positioning of the proposed garage relative to the neighbouring dwellings and the use of a flat roof, it is not considered that there would be unacceptable levels of overshadowing or loss of outlook from those properties in accordance with design standards in section 7 of the Residential Design Guide. - 6.3 Character and Appearance

• 6.3.1 There are two aspects to consider in relation to the impact of the garage on the appearance of the area. The area itself is not considered to be of any special conservation value and features modern buildings, but the appearance of the garage and the impact on the street scene and site itself is the first consideration.
• 6.3.2 The garage itself would be finished in cladding which would not be an appearance out of keeping with domestic ancillary buildings such as sheds and garden rooms. The size and design of the garage would likely not add value to the character and appearance of the site, but the site dwelling is modern and the curtilage large enough to accommodate such a building without it appearing overly dominant. The grass roof may also reduce the impact of the large building somewhat. The impact therefore is considered likely to be minimal.
• 6.3.3 Whilst not readily visible, at some distance down the access lane, from the adjacent part of Church Close, the garage would be visible above the existing timber fencing by close to 2 metres from Ballacannell and the junction with the lower part of Church Close. This area sits lower than the site, and the site dwelling itself is quite a dominant feature in the area, broken from the road by a steep grass bank. Whilst the garage would also be visible and increase the massing of the site, it would not do so in such a manner as to render it unacceptable. Again the use of grass roof and timber cladding would reduce its visual impact somewhat and ensure its secondary appearance to the dwelling. The garage would not unacceptably alter the street scene and would broadly accord with GP2 (b,c,g) in that respect.

• 6.3.4 The second consideration in this respect is the loss in over 50% of the front garden. The RDG notes that proposals which would result in this are unlikely to be supported. This is more relevant to dwellings which directly front onto a highway, the application site has a unique layout which means that its 'front garden' does not front onto a highway, nor does any part of the site. The loss of part of the garden is considered to be acceptable in that it would have minimal wider impact on the street scene. Similarly, the loss of 6 leylandii trees on the site would not be unacceptably detrimental and no objection has been received from DEFA Forestry. The trees would have been planted in relatively recent years and are of limited amenity value in terms of the appearance of the street scene.

6.4 Parking

• 6.4.1 Parking capacity is currently deemed sufficient for the parking of at least two vehicles on the site, and with the implementation of the planning approval 16/01081/B this would remain as noted in the report for that application.
• 6.4.2 The introduction of the garage would in practice result in one parking space, as there would be insufficient interior floor space to accommodate two cars to Manual for Manx Roads standards. However, the area is currently grassed and the parking on the tarmac driveway would not be impacted. In this respect, the proposal accords with GP2 (h).

6.5 Drainage

• 6.5.1 It is considered that as the garage would sit on concrete tiers and much of the top soil underneath would be retained, and as a grass roof is proposed, it is not likely that unacceptable levels of run off onto Ballacannell would result.

6.6 Other matters

• 6.6.1 Concerns have been raised by neighbours about additional matter such as the use of the garage, the property deeds and sewerage. The latter two are not material planning concerns in this case, property deeds are a civil matter. With regard to potential use of the garage, the concerns are noted and a condition should be added to restrict the usage to domestic only.
• 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 On the basis of the above the application is considered to be in accordance with the aforementioned policy on balance and is recommended for an approval. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), 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
• (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

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: 11.11.2019

Signed : S 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).

Signatoryto delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

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.

Planning Committee Decision 11.11.2019

Application No. : 19/01034/B Applicant : Mr Jason Elliot Proposal : Erection of detached garage Site Address : The Studio 1 Church Close Lonan Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7JY Planning Officer Mr Nick Salt Reporting Officer Miss Sarah Corlett Addendum to the Officer’s Report The Planning Committee refused the application at its meeting of 11.11.19 for the following reason:

The proposed garage, by virtue of its position, construction and appearance would result in an adverse visual impact on the area as viewed from the adjacent roadway and would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, contrary to General Policy 2b, c and g and the Residential Design Guidance which advises that "Proposals which result in the loss of more than 50% of the existing front lawned/landscaped garden will not normally be supported".

Reason for Refusal

R 1. The proposed garage, by virtue of its position, construction and appearance would result in an adverse visual impact on the area as viewed from the adjacent roadway and would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, contrary to General Policy 2b, c and g and the Residential Design Guidance which advises that "Proposals which result in the loss of more than 50% of the existing front lawned/landscaped garden will not normally be supported".

This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped received on 13th September:

• o 038 100 Location & Site Plan
• o 038 101 Proposed General Arrangement of Container Garage