DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 19/01042/B Applicant: Andrew Thomas Mills Proposal: Erection of shed Site Address: Stoneycroft Clay Head Close Baldrine Isle Of Man IM4 6DW Planning Officer: Mr Nick Salt Photo Taken: 16.10.2019 Site Visit: 16.10.2019 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 28.10.2019 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. It is considered that the proposal does not accord with General Policy 2 (b,c&g) or the best practice approach outlined in the Residential Design Guidance due to the overall mass and siting of the shed - particularly when viewed from the roadside adjacent to the site. The visual impact of the shed would detract from the street scene of Clay Head Close and from the nature of the semi-rural Clay Head Road, as well as the appearance of the site itself.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 SITE - 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of 'Stoneycroft', Baldrine. The site forms part of the small cul-de-sac of Clay Head Close, at the junction with Clay Head Road. It sits on an area of relatively steep topography, with a sloped front garden and the properties to the north sitting substantially lower. The site dwelling itself is a bungalow of modest appearance, similar in size to the others in Clay Head Close. The frontages of the properties along the Close typically feature front gardens with mature hedging and trees around boundary areas. The corner plot opposite the site is well screened by vegetation. - 1.2 To the site frontage there is a recently altered driveway with a raised concrete platform at the side of a 3 metre wide driveway. There is another driveway at the other side of the site frontage with a grass lawn between. Hedging bounds the site with 'Mouette' to the south west.

2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a 5x3m shed on the raised concrete platform at the front north west corner of the site. The shed would be 2.1 metres to the eaves and 2.4 metres to the ridge of the shallow pitched roof. Its proposed finish and construction is timber, with a blank wall facing the roadside and window and door openings facing inwards to the dwelling. It would be used for domestic storage.

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;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways."

3.3 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 - 4.1 There is no planning history for this site which is considered materially relevant to this application.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 DoI Highway Services do not oppose the application (09.10.19). - 5.2 Garff Commissioners have considered the impact of the proposal and deferred any recommendation to the directorate (20.10.19).

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The key consideration in the assessment of this application is the potential for impact on the visual character and appearance of the site and street scene, parking and highway safety concerns. - 6.2 Due to the positioning of the proposed shed relative to the neighbouring dwellings and its size, it is not considered that there would be unacceptable amenity impacts on those properties in accordance with design standards in section 7 of the Residential Design Guide. - 6.3 Visual Impact

• 6.3.1 General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, along with the supplementary Residential Design Guidance, forms the basis of how the visual impact of the proposal is assessed. Both the impact of the shed on the site itself and on the wider street scene are assessed, taking account of the current street pattern and appearance. The Residential Design Guidance (July 2019) states, with regard to driveways and front gardens:

• "Front gardens provide an important physical boundary between a dwelling and the public realm. They can enhance the privacy of a dwelling, as well as filtering out the noise and air pollutants produced by pedestrians and motorised traffic. Front gardens with perimeter walls, hedges or fences can offer safer spaces in which children can play and they often contribute to the natural habitat of wildlife. Urban green space has a positive effect on health and wellbeing, by enhancing sensory and aesthetic awareness."
• 6.3.2 As noted previously in this report, the front gardens of many of the properties along Clay Head Close - including the property on the opposite side of the street - are characterised by grass areas, hedging and trees. The application site is notable for the open nature of the frontage, with a mix of grassed garden and concrete hard standing, bounded by hedging between the site and the curtilage of Mouette to the southwest.
• 6.3.3 The raised concrete platform in the eastern corner of the site adjacent to the footway is raised to the level of the retaining wall at the front boundary and is a noticeable feature in the street scene which does not add value to its appearance. The erection of a garden shed on this platform, with its rear elevation flush with the edge of the platform and the site boundary, would exacerbate the impact of hard built surfaces on this semi-rural residential street. The shed would be an eye-catching and dominating feature in the site frontage resulting in some visual harm to the site itself, and notable visual harm to the wider street scene, particularly given its prominent location on the corner with Clay Head Road. In this case, there would be no natural boundary between the footpath and what may be considered a relatively tall structure when viewed from below on the footpath or highway itself. Given the above, it is considered that the proposal does not accord with General Policy 2 (b,c&g) or the best practice approach outlined in the Residential Design Guidance.
• 6.4 Parking and Highway Safety

• 6.4.1 General Policy 2 also covers aspects in relation to parking and highway safety issues. In this case, it is important that if the proposal were approved and commenced, two parking spaces would be provided on site - as per the current Strategic Plan parking standards. Whilst a significant part of this area of the frontage of the dwelling has been concreted, some of this would be occupied by the proposed shed, and space would be needed for the opening of access doors into it. However it is considered that through both the driveway in question and the area of hard standing to the west of the site, and the other driveway to the front of the dwelling, a minimum of 2 off road parking spaces would continue to be provided.
• 6.4.2 In terms of highway safety, the issue of concern in this case would be the visibility for vehicles entering and exiting Clay Head Close onto the Clay Head Road (south). While mindful that there are only a small number of dwellings further south on this road (which ends to the south east), it is an adopted highway and any restriction in visibility as noted would likely be unacceptable in terms of GP2 (h&i). Having reviewed the plans submitted, and having visited the site on 16th October 2019, it is evident that there would be no unacceptable obstruction of views in to or out of Clay Head Close, and certainly not more than would have been the case prior to the removal of an area of planting and its replacement with concrete. Overall, it is not considered that there would be an unacceptable risk to highway safety and the proposal accords with General Policy 2 parts (h)&(i) in this respect.

7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 Whilst other aspects of the proposal are considered acceptable as outlined above, the visual impact of the shed would detract from the street scene of Clay Head Close and from the nature of the semi-rural Clay Head Road, as well as the appearance of the site itself. For this reason, the proposed shed would not accord with either General Policy 2 or the DEFA Residential Design Guidance and is considered unacceptable on balance. - 7.2 The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

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 can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 29.10.2019 Determining officer

Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Principal Planner

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.