Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/00029/B Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 24/00029/B Applicant : Mr Gary Lamb Proposal : Erection of a detached triple garage with garden wall / gate Site Address : The Old House - Reef House College Green / Douglas Street Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1BE
Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 26.05.2023 Site Visit : 26.05.2023 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 29.04.2024 __
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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Overall, it is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the character of the existing dwelling or locality within which it is located, and no adverse impacts have been identified as likely with respect of the impacts on neighbouring or public amenity, and highway safety. The proposal is, therefore, considered to comply with General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 3 (b), and Environment Policy 42, and Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan, and the principles promoted by the Residential Design Guide 2021.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the following documents and plans:
o Design Statement; o Drawing EX-01 Rev A; and o Drawing P-01 Rev A;
Received 22 January 2024.
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/00029/B Page 2 of 8
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 4(2):
20 Douglas Street, Castletown;
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.
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 4(2):
Seascape, 14 Douglas Street, Castletown; 15 Douglas Street, Castletown; 16 and 17 Douglas Street, Castletown; 18 Douglas Street, Castletown; 19 Douglas Street, Castletown; 21 Douglas Street, Castletown;
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 REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AND THERE ARE MORE THAN 4 OBJECTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Old House - Reef House, which is a large detached dwelling within large grounds situated on the southern side of College Green, Castletown. This detached dwelling sits noticeably at the junction between Bowling Green Road and College Green, with its vehicular entrance accessed via Douglas Street, Castletown.
1.2 The existing house is a three storey dwelling 2hich has three chimney stacks on its roof plane; two on the gables and one almost mid-way within the roof plane. The existing roof is finished in slate tiles, while the predominant window material is timber. There are decorative mouldings which contribute to the external appearance of the dwelling. Currently, the dwelling has two main entrance doors which project from the front elevation of the dwelling as flat roofed porches. There is a balcony set over the entrance porch to the left of the front elevation.
1.3 A Manx stone wall about 1.8m high when viewed from the adjoining highway runs along the entire stretch of the site boundary opening up at the existing vehicular entrance
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/00029/B Page 3 of 8
which measures about 2.7m wide, pedestrian access gates and an existing garage/workshop on the northern boundary.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Erection of a detached triple garage with garden wall/gate. The new garage would measure 6.8m x 10.8m, and be 5.4m tall to the ridge (3.2m to the eaves). This building which would have a hipped roof over will house a triple garage. Three electrical charging points will be provided to serve the three parking provisions within the garage.
2.2 The new garage building which would be positioned southeast of the existing dwelling on site would be finished externally in self-colour smooth render finish similar to existing house, while its hipped roof would be finished ion natural slate roof tiles, with clay ridge. The three garage doors which would measure 2.4m x 2.5m would all be new sectional garage doors. The new high level windows at the rear would be UPVC or Aluminium double glazed units.
2.3 No trees or mature landscaping would be impacted by the development.
2.4 The applicants have provided a Planning Statement which sets out the history of the site, whilst highlighting the need for the new garage (to prevent salt water corrosion of cars parked on site), particularly for the electric car owned by the applicant. This statement also states that the design of the proposal has been sensitively considered, and that the design seeks to address concerns raised by the neighbours with footprint reduced. They also note that they have considered comments from the Department in the final design.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific 3.1.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Residential on the Area Plan for the South, and the site lies outside Castletown's Conservation Area. The site is not within a registered tree area and there are no registered trees on site. The site is also not prone to flood risks, although its entire southern boundary adjoins an area of High Tidal Flood Risk Zone. The southern boundary of the site is adjacent to the Langness Bay Marine Nature Reserve (MNR). As such, the following planning policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are considered relevant;
3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016) a. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations. b. Environment Policy 4 - protection of ecology and designated sites/protected species. c. Environment Policy 5 - In exceptional circumstances where development is allowed which could adversely affect a site recognised under Environmental Policy 4, conditions will be imposed. d. Environment Policy 42 - new development should be designed to take into account the character and identity of the area. e. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources. f. Strategic Policy 3 - Development to respect the character of our towns and villages. g. Strategic Policy 4 - development proposals must protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban as well as rural areas. h. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact. i. Transport Policy 7 - Parking considerations/standards for development. j. Community Policies 7, 10 and 11 provide guidance in respect of minimising criminal activity and reducing spread of fire, while Infrastructure Policy 5 deals with methods for water conservation.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/00029/B Page 4 of 8
4.1 Whilst not adopted planning policy, DEFA's Residential Design Guidance is a material consideration in the assessment of this application as, "It is intended to apply to any residential development within existing villages and towns, including individual houses, conversions and householder extensions". Sections 2.0 on sustainable construction and 7.0 which deal with impact on neighbouring properties are considered relevant to the current scheme.
4.2 The Manual for Manx Roads sets out the minimum standards for garages. Paragraphs C.7.34 and C.7.35 of the manual relates specifically to the design requirements for new garages.
4.3 Section 68 of the Flood Risk Management Act (2013) indicates that any published Flood Risk Management Plan and the extent to which the proposed development creates an additional flood risk are material considerations.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The site has been the subject of a previous planning application which is considered to be materially relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application.
5.2 Approval was granted under PA 22/01463/B for Sun room extension, demolition of out- riggers, renovation of a barn/garage into family accommodation, and renovation of the main house. This enabled the conversion the conversion of the existing garage on site to ancillary living accommodation.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 DOI Highways Division have no interest in the application (26 January 2024).
6.2 DOI Flood Risk Management have not made any comments on the application although they were consulted on 24 January 2024.
6.3 Castletown Commissioners have not made any comments on the application although they were consulted on 24 January 2024.
6.4 The owners/occupiers of the following properties have made written representations on the application: a. Seascape, 14 Douglas Street, Castletown; b. 15 Douglas Street, Castletown (14.02.24); c. 16 and 17 Douglas Street, Castletown (6.02.24); d. 18 Douglas Street, Castletown (7.02.24); e. 19 Douglas Street, Castletown (15.02.24); f. 20 Douglas Street, Castletown (14.02.24/8.03.24/22.04.24); g. 21 Douglas Street, Castletown (31.01.24);
6.4.1 They object to the application on the following grounds: o They refer to overbearing impacts on neighbours. o They refer to use of existing garage as living accommodation. o They refer to potential damage/flooding of garage as a result of coastal overtopping. o They state that increasing built footprint on site would reduce impermeable ground available to absorb surface water run-off. o They refer to visual impacts on the coastline. o They refer to flooding of highway and adjacent properties. o They express concerns with the size and height of the building. o They refer to impact on traffic. o Impact on private views which is not material planning consideration.
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/00029/B Page 5 of 8
o They refer to impact on the landscape. o They refer to potential for gravel to be spread on the adjacent highway. o They refer to impact on value of property which is not material planning consideration. o They refer to the proposal exacerbating seawater overtopping at this corner of the site, with potential flood impacts on their property. o Loss of public view.
6.4.2 In response to the comments from the neighbours, the applicants have sought to address the concerns raised in their correspondence dated 26 March 2024. Some of the key issues addressed are as follows: o There would be no impact on public views as no views of the sea or Langness can be achieved from the adjacent street due to the surrounding wall, vegetation and sea wall. o The photos provided by the objectors do not have dates and are only a snap shot in time, and as such give no sense of the drainage rate of the sea water as Reef House. o The level of water in the Garden of Reef house is shallow and would not represent a risk to other properties. o It is well known that the weakest point along Douglas Street for sea water entry is beyond Reef House where the shingle beach meets the wall.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this planning application are: a. The principle of erecting the proposed garage; b. The visual impact of the proposed alterations and extension on the existing dwelling itself; c. The Impacts on the surrounding Street scene and locality; d. Impact on neighbouring amenity; e. The impact on the adjacent highway; and f. Flood risk concerns;
7.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT (STP 1, SP2, GP2) 7.2.1 In assessing the principle of the proposed development, it is considered that the site is zoned for residential use which implies that the use of the site for purposes incidental to the residential use of the site would be compatible with adjoining uses and conform to the general use of the area.
7.2.2 The site is also within the settlement boundary and adjacent to and surrounded by existing residential dwellings; conditions which would ensure that the development here broadly aligns with Strategic Policies 1 and 2. Thus, the principle of utilising the site for proposed development would be complimentary to the dominant residential use within the locality.
7.2.3 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that as the application aligns with the zoning of the area within the Area Plan for the East, and the development of the site for purposes incidental to the residential use of the site would be acceptable in principle.
7.2 VISUAL IMPACTS (GP2, STP 3, EP42, & RDG) 7.3.1 In assessing the impacts of the proposed works on the existing dwelling, it is considered the works would largely be in keeping with the character and appearance the main dwelling on site, with its form, scale and overall bulk ensuring that it remains subordinate to the existing dwelling on site.
7.3.2 Likewise, the design of the garage building which would bear the features of the main dwelling in terms of roof finish, walls finish and fenestration design, would ensure that the new building aligns with the dominant design and finishing of the main dwelling, thus, ensuring that the changes tie in with the appearance of the existing dwelling.
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/00029/B Page 6 of 8
7.3.3 Overall, the proposed garage building would tie in with the main dwelling, and would not detract from the general appearance of the site in its current context which exhibits traditional and modern forms; thus conforming to GP 2(b, c, and g), and the RDG 2021.
7.3.4 With regard to the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding area, it is considered that the proposed works would be largely contained within the existing site due to the nature of the surrounding walling which is set above the eye line, with the existing mature plantings along large sections of the site boundary also serving to further obscure views to the proposed development. Whilst it is noted that some view of the roof plane would be achievable from the street scene over the walls, with glimpsing views achievable via the gates, the proposed dwelling would be in keeping with the general character of the site, and read within the residential context of the site, given the design and finishing of the proposal which would respect the key features of the existing dwelling. Therefore, the proposal is judged to be acceptable and not averse to the character of the street scene and locality to which the property belongs.
7.3.5 Overall, it is considered that this visual elements of the scheme would be acceptable and compliant with the requirements of General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 3, and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan.
7.4 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITY (GP2 & RDG 2021): 7.4.1 With regard to the impact of the development on the neighbouring properties and general public amenity, it is worth noting that the proposed building are single storey and would be at the section of the site where it would be situated about 25m from the nearest neighbouring property. As such, it is not considered that there would be direct impacts on neighbouring amenity in terms of overlooking, overbearing impacts or overshadowing.
7.4.2 It has been alleged by some of the neighbours that the proposal would impact of private views from their properties. However, the loss of view is not a material planning consideration, and holds no weight in the determination of a planning application. As such, it is not considered that the loss of view is a concern in this case.
7.5 FLOOD RISK CHALLENGES (GP 2, EP 10 & EP 13) 7.5.1 General Policy 2(i) and Environment Policy 13 assert that development which is prone to unreasonable risk or unacceptable risk from flooding (either on or off-site), will not be permitted. With the current application, there would be no changes to the site levels which would increase the vulnerabilities beyond that which is present and the proposed building is for a garage which is not a living accommodation and which would pose risk to life of its occupants. Likewise, the site lies outwith a flood prone area as detailed on the Isle of Man Indicative Flood Maps which would mean that the site is not within an area considered to have high risks from flooding.
7.5.2 The comments which refer to coastal overtopping at the site are noted. However, it must be acknowledged that the displacement of any overtopping water on site would not be impeded by the nature of the development given its scale relative to the scale of the undeveloped part of the site which would still amount to about 2115sqm when the building which has a footprint of about 73sqm is deducted from the remaining 2188sqm of undeveloped site area, should the development be approved and erected, and this should allow for ease of natural site drainage and use of soakaway. Moreover, the site access slopes away from the adjoining highway which would mean that the chances for surface water drainage to flow from the site to the highway would be greatly diminished.
7.5.3 Whilst reference has been made to photographs which show the site and environs to have been the subject of some flood event that have occurred in the area, it is my understanding from review of the Isle of Man Flood Hub that the flood maps are created from weather forecast information together with tidal predictions and storm surge forecasts which
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/00029/B Page 7 of 8
are observed over time, and not a singular or infrequent flood anomalies that could occur in an area.
7.5.4 Perhaps, it would be vital to state that the policy test (as stipulated in EP 10 and EP 13) is whether the proposal would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, and not if flood risks exist, notwithstanding the fact that the site in its current context is not judged to be prone to flood risks. Therefore, it is considered that although the potential for coastal overtopping exists for the site, as with any other residential properties that directly abuts the coastline in the area, the flood maps which guide the decisions in terms of flood impacts clearly indicate that the site is not within a flood risk zone. Besides, it is not considered that the proposal would result in unacceptable risk from given the scale of the proposed building and nature of its use. Thus, it is considered that the requirements of Environment Policies 10 and 13 have been met in the current case.
7.6 Impact on Highway (GP 2 h&i, & CP 10) 7.6.1 In terms of impacts on highway safety, it is considered that the erection of the garage would not result in adverse impacts on on-street parking in the area as the site has sufficient space to accommodate the parking requirements for the property, and the garage would be creating more on-site parking for vehicles.
7.6.2 It is also important to note that DOI Highways have considered that proposal and have no interest in the application, which is an indication that they have no concerns with the scheme in its current form.
7.6.4 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the development would not result in adverse highway safety impacts and would meet the requirements of General Policy 2 (h & i), and Transport Policy 7.
7.7 OTHER MATTERS 7.7.1 The neighbours have asserted that the proposal would impact on public views to the sea. However, it must be noted that the height of the existing wall that surrounds the site boundary, together with the existing plantings along most of the site boundary which borders the highway would ensure that loss of public views is not a concern with the current proposal. It must be noted that no views of the sea can be achieved through the site in its current form, as any view into the site is completely private given the intervening mediums on site which restricts such views towards the sea.
7.7.2 The matters related to property values and protection of private views, bear no weight as material planning considerations and as such cannot be considered in the assessment of this planning application.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall, the proposal is considered to be appropriate in this location and complies with General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 3 (b), Environment Policy 42, and Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan, and the principles promoted by the Residential Design Guide 2021.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
==== PAGE 8 ====
24/00029/B Page 8 of 8
(e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
9.2 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 above 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 that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 07.05.2024
Signed : P VISIGAH 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 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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal