Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/00532/C
Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/00532/C Applicant : Mr Andrew East Proposal : Additional use of tourist accommodation (class 3.6) as residential (class 3.3) Site Address : Vicarage Holiday Cottages Land At Glebe Farm Main Road Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 2HD
Photo Taken : 11.09.2024 Site Visit : 11.09.2024 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 31.01.2025
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.
C 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None
Officer’s Report
THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT RECOMMENDED FOR AN APPROVAL
THE APPLICATION SITE
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/00532/C
Page 2 of 8
1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Vicarage Holiday Cottages, which are two holiday cottages situated to the Western side of Glebe Farm. The holiday cottages are connected to The Old Vicarage, which is in the same ownership.
1.2 The holiday cottages are accessed via an access lane and right of way within Glebe Farm via vehicles and via an access gate within the rear of The Old Vicarage.
1.3 There is a right of way through the existing site, which is to maintain agricultural access to the existing field to the South of the site.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The current planning application seeks approval additional use of the existing tourist accommodation with residential accommodation.
2.2 The applicant’s summary within their planning statements states, "4.9 We would submit that the proposal will allow flexibility in the occupation of these cottages to ensure their continued usage which in turn will support their continued maintenance and upkeep. They are modest properties whose additional use as residential accommodation will not generate any significant change in impact and we would submit that the proposal complies with all the current, adopted policies applicable to the site."
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The existing cottages were approved under PA04/02175/B, with the following condition 3, "Between the 1st March and 1st October in any one year the holiday accommodation hereby approved must only be used for individual lets, not exceeding four weeks in duration, to bona fide tourists. Outside of this period longer lets to bona fide tourists are permissible."
3.2 The existing access for the existing cottages was approved under PA07/01129/B.
PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "Predominately Residential" on the Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994, with the site being designated as "Not for Development" on the Draft Area Plan for the North and West, Map 10 - Kirk Michael. The site is not situated within a Conservation Area nor a Flood Risk Zone.
4.2 ISLE OF MAN STRATEGIC PLAN 2016 4.2.1 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent to the assessment of this application: General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations. Environment Policy 4 - Protects ecology and biodiversity/important habitats. Environment Policy 42 - new development should be designed to take into account the character and identity of the area. Housing Policy 1 - Refers to housing needs which includes enabling 5,100 additional dwellings (net of demolitions), and including those created by conversion, to be built over the Plan period 2011 to 2026. Housing Policy 4 - New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Housing Policy 17 - Deals with the conversion of buildings into flats/apartments. However, its principles would be applicable to the current application which seeks to erect a new block of apartments in a built up area, particularly in relation to outlook, amenity space provisions, parking, and traffic management. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources. Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages. Strategic Policy 3 - Development to respect the character of our towns and villages. Strategic Policy 4 - development proposals must protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban as well as rural areas.
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/00532/C
Page 3 of 8
Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact. Strategic Policy 10 - development should promote integrated journeys, minimise car use and facilitate other modes of travel. Transport Policy 1 - Proximity to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes important for new development. Transport Policy 4 - New and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan. Transport Policy 7 - Parking considerations/standards for development. 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.
4.3 OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 4.3.1 The Residential Design Guidance (2021) is also a material consideration and provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing properties, as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services have considered the proposal and after a discussion with the applicant state they do not oppose the application. (14.11.24)
5.2 Michael Commissioners were consulted on the 15th May 2024, to the date of this report no comments have been received regarding this application.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;
6.2 PRINCIPLE 6.2.1 The application site is situated within the Kirk Michael settlement boundary and whilst situated at the end of the settlement boundary it is situated near to other residential dwellings, conditions which would ensure that the proposed residential use here would broadly align with Strategic Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4.
6.2.2 Overall, in terms of the acceptability of the use of the site for residential, it is concluded that the proposal will align with the land zoning at the time, and the proposal of additional use as residential would be acceptable in principle. It is, however, worth noting that the factors highlighted above do not in any way denote automatic approval for residential use of the site, given that the proposed residential use would be acceptable for the site, and that the proposal would not have any impacts within regards to access, parking, highway safety nor neighbouring amenity. Therefore, it still remains necessary to assess the proposed residential use against other relevant planning policies and the physical constraints of the application site.
6.3 HIGHWAY SAFETY, ACCESS AND PARKING 6.3.1 When looking at Highway Safety, the access and parking they can all be taken separately. In the first instance, after receiving a revised site plan the proposal does show two parking spaces per unit, with one space being to the North of the site and three parking spaces being to the West of the site, these parking spaces are parallel to each other. There is no demarcation to state which spaces are for which unit, but as four parking spaces have been provided within the site, this is deemed to comply with Transport Policy 7 in connection with appendix 7.
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/00532/C
Page 4 of 8
6.3.2 When looking at Highway Safety and the existing access, no issues have been raised with the access from the main highway into Glebe Farm, with the initial concerns being with regards to the usability and safety of the existing lane access from Glebe Farm to the accommodation with regards to two-way movements from the separate units. As such a swept path analysis was requested to provide how the existing access would be usable.
6.3.3 Whilst the swept path analysis wasn't provided the applicants provided information to state that the lane provided to the tourist units was approved under PA07/01129/B. It is noted that the existing lane is not what was approved under PA07/01129/B with the angles being sharper than provided and narrower in sections.
6.3.4 Highway Services have stated, "As the double tourist accommodation was approved in 2004 and a separate access lane was approved in 2007, the proposed use as two dwellings appears to be acceptable as this would generate similar or a slight increase in trips compared to the existing use and therefore the risk would be low in regards to two way movement along the access land."
6.3.5 Having visited the site, the lane is only suitable for one car movements, with there being no passing places, nor visibility through the corners, as such if a car either side meets another, one will have to reverse. When Highway Services were queried on the lane and its visibility, they stated that if the owners of the site require improvements to the lane they could install mirrors to all the bends, but as it is a minor domestic matter it would not impact public safety.
6.3.6 Whilst it is noted that Highway Services do not raise any objections to the existing access lane, based on the information provided the basis of the approval from Highway Services is that the access lane was approved in 2007 under PA07/01129/B, at the time the Manual for Manx Roads was not in place. In our opinion policy has moved on since the original approval with regards to highway safety, as such the existing lane is finely balanced on whether the amenity standards are acceptable for the possible increase of vehicular traffic which would accompany two residential accommodations. Especially when noting that the proposal is not for out of season residential but additional use as residential and as such, the tourist units could be used as residential all year round.
6.4 AMENITY STANDARDS FOR FUTURE OCCUPANTS 6.4.1 When looking at the addition of residential use to the site, it is important to note that there is a difference in the amenity one might expect to be provided from a tourist unit and the amenity that one might expect that a residential dwelling should afford, such considerations include the level of privacy provided between properties, the amount of internal and external space allocated to the property, the convenience of the service space such as bin storage and car parking and the level of shared facilities with other properties.
6.4.2 Due to the amenity standards being different for each unit, they are assessed separately;
6.5 UNIT 1 6.5.1 Turning firstly towards Unit 1 which is the most Northern unit. Strategic Policy 1 and General Policy 2 are specific in the fact that amenity standards need to be assessed when looking at new developments. When looking at the amenity standards afforded to each unit, The Residential Design Guidance 2021 provides guidance on the main considerations which are looked at, which include the potential loss of light/overshadowing, potential overbearing impact upon outlook and potential overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy. It is relevant to note when assessing the above, a primary habitable room is a living room, dining room, kitchen which includes dining facilities and a conservatory.
6.6 LOSS OF LIGHT/ OVERSHADOWING 6.6.1 Unit 1, due to its location within the site, would not be impacted by a loss of light or overshadowing from either Unit 2 or the proposed parking. Whilst there are substantial mature hedging/trees to the East, South and West, these are not deemed to overshadow the Unit 1.
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/00532/C
Page 5 of 8
6.7 OVERBEARING IMPACT UPON OUTLOOK 6.7.1 When looking at whether the proposal would have an overbearing impact upon the outlook of Unit 1, it should be noted that future residents of the site should enjoy appropriate levels of comfort and enjoyment of their properties without their outlook being impacted. Overlooking can take a variety of forms and can vary on a range of factors including the use of an overlooked spot, the typical duration of usage and what mitigation is in place to reduce overlooking. The general guide for overlooking is 20 meters which is a useful way to identify whether overlooking is likely to be a concern, and also refers to the distance between elevations that contain windows serving a habitable room.
6.7.2 When looking at Unit 1, there are several parts in which overlooking can be an issue, in the first instance it is relevant to note that the entrance via vehicles and other means is via the access lane, whilst there is a gated entrance which is connected to The Old Vicarage, it is ascertained that this would not be used as an access into the site. Whilst there is two entrances into Unit 1, there is only one entrance into unit 2, this means that depending on which car parking space Unit 2 parks in, depends on which windows of Unit 1 they go past to get into Unit 2. If Unit 2 parks within car parking space 1, they will go past one room within the living room, two within the only bedroom of unit 1 and the bathroom, if Unit 2 parks within car parking space 2 to 4, then they would have to go around Unit 1 to get into their Unit, this would mean walking around the whole unit and all the windows within the unit. The elevation difference between where the car parking means that you would be looking down into the windows within the kitchen/ living room of Unit 1 and at eye level for the bedroom and bathroom within Unit 1.
6.7.3 This in itself would create an overlooking impact, actual and perceived. Whilst this could be improved by having either privacy glazing upon all the windows, there would still be a perceived overlooking impact to the site.
6.8 AMENITY STANDARDS 6.8.1 Turning towards the amenity standards of Unit 1, whilst the general standards mentioned above are suitable, it should be noted that the garden space for Unit 1 is unsatisfactory. Having visited the site, it can clearly be seen that the septic tank is situated within the middle of the garden most likely to be associated with Unit 1. It is also noted that there is a footpath shown which would reduce the proposed space provided to the garden.
6.9 UNIT 2 6.9.1 Unit 2 is the larger of the two units and is situated to the Southern side of the site and is provided with two balconies. When looking at the amenity standards of Unit 2, the same aspects can be assessed as Unit 1.
6.10 LOSS OF LIGHT/ OVERSHADOWING 6.10.1 Having visited the site, it could clearly be seen that due to the mature hedging and trees to the East and South of the site, there is a lot of shade to the main dwelling, with the likelihood that the site doesn't benefit from a high amount of sun. Whilst this is the case a lot of the mature trees which provide shading are situated outside of the red boundary line.
6.11 OVERBEARING IMPACT UPON OUTLOOK 6.11.1 Turning towards whether the proposal would have an overbearing impact upon the outlook of Unit 2. It is noted that the majority of overlooking/overbearing impact is with Unit 1 with the likelihood that Unit 2 would only be overlooked is with parking spaces 2 & 3, if Unit 1 were to park within them and the impact upon the windows within Unit 2's windows and with the turning area towards to South of the site.
6.12 AMENITY STANDARDS
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/00532/C
Page 6 of 8
6.12.1 When looking at the additional amenity standards awarded to Unit 2, the proposed garden would be of a suitable size. Whilst a rear garden is shown during the officers site visit there was an oil tank which took up the majority of this space.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposal would meet the overall principle of a residential use due to its siting within an area zoned as "predominantly residential." Whilst there are concerns regarding the access lane, Highway Services who are the professional with regards to Highway Safety do not raise any concerns in relation to the access lane. That being said, the comments raised are based on a previously approved application and not on current policy, which has moved on since the initial approval. The parking provided is the two spaces per unit as per Transport Policy 7 in connection with Appendix 7. The general amenity with regards to Housing Policy 17 and the living standards of the proposal, are deemed acceptable with the internal space being a suitable size, with areas to wash/ dry clothing.
7.2 Then considering the impact on any future residential occupants. As stated above, there is an important difference between the amenity one might expect to be provided by a tourist unit and the amenity that a residential property should be afforded. When looking at the proposal within this application, it can clearly be seen that the amenity for Unit 1 is unsatisfactory not only from an overbearing/ actual and perceived overlooking point of view but also from a garden space, with the main assessment being whether this would cause significant harm to the living conditions of future permanent occupants of the site.
7.3 Taking into account the above this proposal is acknowledged not to conflict with the existing land allocation, whilst there is some conflict in relation to the access lane it is finely balanced. Whilst the existing situation is acceptable as holiday accommodation, with the expectations and needs being different, the proposal is not considered appropriate for the permanent residential accommodation. It should be noted that several applications initially being refused on amenity standards have been overturned at appeal on the basis that, whilst the amenity standards are not what is generally perceived as acceptable and often undesirable, future occupants of the site are going into the property knowing the constraints that are in place, which if they stay, they are accepting of them.
7.4 With all the other aspects of the proposal being acceptable the undesirable amenity standards in and of themselves are not enough to warrant refusal, as such the proposal is deemed to comply with Strategic Policy 5, General policy 2 (b, c, g, h & k), and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and the principles promoted by the Residential Design Guide 2021.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including Wan 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; (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.
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
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/00532/C
Page 7 of 8
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 it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : ...Refused.. Committee Meeting Date:...10.02.2025
Signed : Vanessa Porter 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.
==== PAGE 8 ====
24/00532/C
Page 8 of 8
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 10.02.2025
Application No. :
24/00532/C Applicant : Mr Andrew East Proposal : Additional use of tourist accommodation (class 3.6) as residential (class 3.3) Site Address : Vicarage Holiday Cottages Land At Glebe Farm Main Road Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 2HD
Planning Officer Vanessa Porter Reporting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Committee with the exception of the Chair, Mr Young and Mrs Hughes, rejected the recommendation of the Case Officer and the application was refused for the following reason:
R1 Whilst the proposed works are deemed acceptable in principle due to the land zoning, the proposal to change the tourist units to residential with additional use as tourist would not provide suitable amenity standards for the occupants within property one, of which the property would also be subject to an overbearing/ overlooked amenity standard which is contrary to General Policy 2 (h).
Reason for Refusal/Conditions of Approval
R 1. Whilst the proposed works are deemed acceptable in principle due to the land zoning, the proposal to change the tourist units to residential with additional use as tourist would not provide suitable amenity standards for the occupants within property one, of which the property would also be subject to an overbearing/ overlooked amenity standard which is contrary to General Policy 2 (h).
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal