Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/91216/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. 24/91216/B Applicant : Mr Valeri Sandler Proposal Alterations to dwelling including: expansion of ground level rear patio, creation of first floor balcony, window / door alterations, removal of conservatory and a flue, realignment of rear boundary. Site Address 8 Ashfield Avenue Union Mills Isle Of Man IM4 4LN
Case Officer :
Vanessa Porter Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 17.01.2025
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.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposed alterations and extensions to the main dwelling, they are considered to be acceptable by not resulting in any new or increased impact on visual amenity of the surrounding streetscene or neighbouring amenity and as such this part of the proposal would comply with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016
In this case there is an absence of practical harm to the countryside by the extension of the residential curtilage due to its small size and where it is situated within the streetscene, it is considered that the proposal would not offend the objectives of GP3 and EP1 which seek to avoid harm to the countryside and therefore the application is considered acceptable.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped received on 25th October 2024; o Drawing No. 1710-1
This decision also relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped received 16th December 2024; o Drawing No. 1710-1 Revision 1
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/91216/B Page 2 of 7
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations/ properties should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highway Services - No objection Braddan Parish Commissioners - No objection
__
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is within the curtilage of No.8 Ashfield Avenue and a small parcel of land situated to the rear garden. No.8 Ashfield Avenue is a large detached property situated to the Southern end of the Ashfield Avenue cul-de-sac and due to the estates elevation gain, the property is situated higher in elevation than its neighbouring properties to the North of the site.
PLANNING HISTORY 2.1 The following are application situated upon the site;
PA02/01149/B - Erection of conservatory to rear of dwelling - Permitted
PA23/01257/LAW - Certificate of Lawful Development - Installation of flue for log-burning stove
THE PROPOSAL 3.1 The current planning application seeks approval for alterations and extension to the main dwelling and for the change of use of part of the field from agricultural land to residential use.
3.2 When looking at the alterations and extension to the main dwelling they include but are not limited to the following;
3.3 To the rear of the property is a void which is currently not used for agriculture nor residential which the proposal is to change to residential land.
PLANNING POLICY
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/91216/B Page 3 of 7
4.1 The main dwelling is situated within an area zoned as "Predominantly Residential" with the area to the rear garden being zoned as "not for development" on the Area Plan for the East, Map 8 - Union Mills/ Strang. The site is not within a Conservation Area nor a Flood Risk Zone.
4.2 With regards to the main dwelling the most relevant Isle of Man Strategic Plan policy is General Policy 2 which sets out general standards towards acceptable development in connection with Environment 42 which seeks that development takes into account the particular character and identify of the surrounding environment. These policies are then followed by Community Policies 7 & 11 in respect of reducing outbreak of fire and preventing criminal activity and Infrastructure Policy 5 in respect of water conservation.
4.3 Also relevant is The Residential Design Guidance which provides advice on design of extensions and alterations to existing dwellings as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties.
4.4 Turning towards the change of use of the land from agricultural to residential the following Strategic Policies are applicable, Environment Policy 1 seeks to prevent development which would adversely affect the side other than in exceptional circumstances, General Policy 3 states that development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan other than a number of stated exceptions.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The following representations can be found in full online;
5.2 Highway Services have considered the proposal and state they have no highways interest. (01.11.24)
5.3 Braddan Parish Commissioners have considered the proposal and have no objections. (01.11.24)
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are:
6.2 ALTERATIONS/ EXTENSION TO MAIN DWELLING 6.2.1 There is a general presumption in favour if extensions and/or alterations to existing properties as per paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, where such works would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent properties or the surrounding area in general.
6.2.2 The majority of the works to the front elevation are cosmetic with the removal of existing windows with larger windows to the ground floor level, the installation of a patio area, a Juliet balcony and the roof terrace. Most of the works would be alterations which would be expected within a residential environment, though with regards to the balcony usually limited to the rear of the site. Whilst this is the case, all these alterations are deemed not to impact the overall streetscene.
6.2.3 With regards to the proposed roof terrace, due to its size, there is a likelihood it would be used regularly with the potential that seating arrangements could be put within it. Whilst this would be an unusual sight within this residential environment as there are no alterations such as this within the streetscene, the proposal ultimately would not impact the dwelling above and beyond what is currently in place and as such deemed acceptable.
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/91216/B Page 4 of 7
6.2.4 The other alterations to the ground floor level and first floor level are deemed acceptable alterations within a residential environment and deemed not to impact the main dwelling above and beyond what is currently in place.
6.3 NEIGHBOURING AMENITY 6.3.1 When looking at the impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties, it can be seen in two parts, firstly the alterations to the front of the property and the alterations to the rear of the property.
6.3.2 To assess the impact of the proposed Juliet balcony and roof terrace on the neighbouring properties, a site visit was undertaken. Whilst No.8 Ashfield Avenue is one of the highest properties in the estate, due to overall amount of built up properties and the location of rear gardens, the proposed Juliet balcony and roof terrace are unlikely to increase any existing overlooking above and beyond what is currently in place, with the main impact being to No. 1 Ashfield Avenue of which the main rear that the Juliet balcony & rood terrace will overlook is the existing front garden.
6.3.3 Turning towards the extension of the existing rear patio to the rear elevation, there is suitable mitigation between boundaries to deem that the extension of the existing patio would not impact neighbouring amenity above and beyond what is currently in place.
6.3.4 It is also noted that no comments have been raised by neighbours with regards to the proposal.
6.4 OTHER MATTERS 6.4.1 The proposed works are alterations and extensions to an already existing dwelling, as such the proposal is not expected to create any changes or new issues in respect of criminal actively or spread of fire. The proposal whilst increasing the surface area of the dwelling, any water run-off will be dealt with as per the existing arrangement of the main dwelling. The proposed works will not increase water usage of the dwelling and therefore there are no new issues in this respect.
6.5 PRINCIPLE OF CHANGE OF USE OF LAND 6.5.1 Turning towards the parcel of land to the rear of the dwelling, generally when looking at the extension to existing residential curtilages, there can be the potential that they can have an adverse impact where the open countryside can become eroded by expansions of gardens with accompanying Permitted Development rights and domestic paraphernalia.
6.5.2 However in other cases, the change is less noticeable or not adverse at all and many applications for this sort of development have been approved throughout the Island, including approvals granted on appeal. Curlew Cottage, Scarlett, Castletown (PA 12/00999) was the subject of a proposal to extend that residential curtilage by around 750 sq m. The reporting officer recommended that the application be permitted and the Committee refused the application on the basis that the proposal would be contrary to EP 1 and would undermine the openness and rural character of the area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. The Appeal Inspector concluded however that whilst; "in principle...the proposal is contrary to policy EP1...however, the policy also seeks to ensure that the development would not have any adverse visual effect and the proposal should be assessed on this basis as well as on the basis of the principle of the development" (his paragraph 11). He states that the boundary treatment would limit views of the extended curtilage which was considered by him to be appropriate for a garden use (paragraph 12) and concluded that the proposal would not be harmful to the character and quality of the landscape and the application was recommended by him for approval and the Minister accepted this recommendation.
6.5.3 By comparison, the same Inspector concluded in respect of another application which involved an increase of an existing residential curtilage, PA 12/00832/B for Cronk ny Killey in
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/91216/B Page 5 of 7
Maughold, that that proposal resulted in "a prominent and noticeable encroachment of built form into the open countryside" (paragraph 15). Also, PA 12/01683 proposed a replacement dwelling at Mount Gawne Road which also involved an increase in the residential curtilage to accommodate the larger dwelling. The Inspector in that case found that, "...the widening of the curtilage would spread domestication further along the road and that the albeit now modest rearward extension would intrude into what is fully open countryside...the proposal would represent unwarranted encroachment into the countryside to the detriment of the character of the landscape, and would cause significant harm to the visual amenity of the area" (paragraphs 31 and 32 of the appeal report).
6.5.4 Further applications for extensions of residential curtilages include Slegaby Cottages - PAs 13/00151 and 13/00019 which were refused by the Planning Committee and which were approved at appeal, Thie ny Garree in Ballaragh (PA 12/00913) which was approved and Bay View in Ballaveare, Braddan which was refused twice and finally approved by the Planning Committee. Permission has recently been granted on appeal for an extension to the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling off Vicarage Road, Kirby View where the Planning Committee had felt that this was not acceptable. The inspector in this case judged that whilst the proposal would be "nominally contrary to General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan, it would not conflict with the objective of Environment Policy 1 that the countryside and its ecology should be protected for its own sake" and recommended that the application should be approved on the basis that the proposal "would not cause any significant or material harm to the countryside" (paragraph 18).
6.5.5 All of these examples illustrate that in certain circumstances extensions to the residential curtilage into the countryside can be considered acceptable but in others it is not and that each case has to be considered on its own merits and in terms of its own particular impact on the character and appearance of the countryside.
6.5.6 The proposed area in which is to change from agricultural to residential is approximately 0.20 of an acre, situated at the end of the existing garden. When looking at the boundaries and the land zoning within the Area Plan for the East for the neighbouring properties, there is a clear boundary line which shows that this land has been encompassed within the neighbouring properties and not No.8 Ashfield Avenue. Overall whilst the area is large in sizing when thinking of a garden, it would not be large enough to have a viable agricultural use.
6.5.7 Whilst generally with the change of use of agriculture to residential there is the issue of domestic paraphernalia and how this would impact the overall countryside, as stated above the neighbouring properties already have this land as part of their residential curtilage, as such any domestic paraphernalia which is put into this part of the land would be accepted as residential due to the overall environment, as such it is deemed that conditions on this point are not required.
CONCLUSION 7.1 When looking at the proposed alterations and extensions to the main dwelling, they are considered to be acceptable by not resulting in any new or increased impact on visual amenity of the surrounding streetscene or neighbouring amenity and as such this part of the proposal would comply with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016
7.2 Turning towards the proposed change of use, overall the openness and rural character of the countryside is not expected to be undermined as a result of the proposed curtilage extension and as such this part of the proposal is deemed to comply with Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 8.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/91216/B Page 6 of 7
(i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).
8.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases); o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.
8.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.
8.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it 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: 27.01.2025
Signed : V 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 7 ====
24/91216/B Page 7 of 7
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 27.01.2025
Application No. :
24/91216/B Applicant : Mr Valeri Sandler Proposal : Alterations to dwelling including: expansion of ground level rear patio, creation of first floor balcony, window / door alterations, removal of conservatory and a flue, realignment of rear boundary. Site Address : 8 Ashfield Avenue Union Mills Isle Of Man IM4 4LN
Planning Officer : Vanessa Porter Presenting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Committee unanimously accepted the recommendation of the Case Officer for approval with the addition of a condition for rear boundary treatment.
Added condition 2: Prior to encompassing the land to the rear of the garden into the residential curtilage, details of the boundary treatment must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not take place other than in accordance with the agreed details and shall be permanently retained thereafter in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal