224035

==== PAGE 1 ====

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No.; Applicant: Proposal: Site Address: 14/00138/B Mr Victor Yates Erection of a detached garage Hillview Sulby Glen Suiby Isle Of Man IM7 2BB Mr Edmond Riley 19.02.2014 19.02.2014 Planning Committee Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Officer's Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE APPLICATION SITE. 1.0 THE APPUCATEON SITE The application site is a parcel of land that will represent the residential curtilage of a detached dwelling currently under construction. It is located on the eastern side of Sulby Glen Road to the south of Sulby Village, Lezayre. 1.1 2.0 THE PROPOSAL Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a double garage to serve the dwelling currently under construction, measuring 8m in width and 7.8m in depth, with an eaves height of 3.3m and a ridgeline height of 6.5m. The roof material would be natural grey slate, while the doors would be of an unspecified material and colour and one side elevation faced in Manx stone; the other side elevation - that facing the dwelling - would be rendered and painted white or cream to match the dwelling, as would the rear elevation. One side door and two rear windows are also proposed. The rear building line of the garage would match that of the rear of the dwelling. 2.1 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY The site has been the subject of three previous planning applications that are considered material to the assessment of this current planning application: 3.1 • Planning application 09/01021/B sought planning approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling. This previous planning application was refused on the 20th April 2010. The stated reason for refusal was: Reason for refusal 1: "The proposal would result in a replacement dwelling of an excessive scale which would detract from the character and appearance of the area by reason of its design, size and massing, and resultant increased visual impact. The proposal is therefore considered to be 14/00138/B Page 1 of 5 12 May 2014

==== PAGE 2 ====

contrary to Housing Policy 14 & Environmental Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and Pianning Circular 3/91." • Pianning application 11/01461/B sought planning approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling and detached garage. This previous planning application was refused on the 13th June 2012. A subsequent appeal against the refusal was dismissed by the Minister, in accordance with the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector, with the appeal refusal decision issued on the 22nd October 2012. The four stated reasons for refusal were: Reason for refusal 1: "The proposal is contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development, if approved, would represent unwarranted encroachment Into the countryside to the detriment of the character of the landscape." Reason for refusal 2: "The proposal is contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that it has not been demonstrated that there is an overriding national need in land use planning terms to justify setting aside this policy which requires the protection of the countryside for its own sake." Reason for refusal 3: "The proposal is contrary to Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development, if approved, would be detrimental to the character, appearance and landscape of this area of countryside by reason of its scale, massing, siting and design." Reason for refusal 4: "The proposal is contrary to Policies 2-7 of Planning Circular 3/91 in that the proposed development, if approved, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of this area of countryside by reason of its scale, massing, design and form." • Planning application 13/00289/B sought pianning approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling. This previous planning application was approved at Planning Committee on 22nd April 2013, and was subject to the two standard conditions in respect of approved plans and the time limit for commencing development. The case officer's report into this application noted that the reduction in size and resulting re­ design of the dwelling to a smaller and traditional form ultimately meant that the reasons for refusal no longer applied as the dwelling was less than 50% greater in size than the existing dwelling and did not encroach unnecessarily into the countryside. Members of Planning Committee also noted the opinion expressed at the Planning Committee by the presenting officer that the proposed dwelling was an improvement over the existing. The case officer also concluded that the issues of flood risk and access were also satisfactorily addressed. It is also worth noting that the Planning Authority is currently considering an application for a revised design to the dwelling approved under 13/00289 (reference 13/00140) on this same site. This application is recommended for approval and has been taken before Planning Committee given the history of the site. 3.2 4.0 PLANNING POLICY In terms of land use designation the application site is located within wider areas of land that are designated as i) woodland; and ii) high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance under the Isle of Man Pianning Scheme (Development Plan). 4.1 12 May 2014 14/00138/B Page 2 of 5

==== PAGE 3 ====

4.2 The application site is also within an area identified as being at potential risk of flooding from encroachment of flood waters from the north and south rather than direct flooding from the river. Although the site of the proposed works is zoned as being within the countryside, it is also within a future residential curtilage. As such, while General Policy 3 might normally be applicable, it is judged that the specifics of the proposal are such as to consider the general principles outlined in General Policy 2, which reads (in part): "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: 4.3 Respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; Does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape, b) c) and g) Does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality." Environment Policy 2 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: 4.4 (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential." Environment Policy 10 states: "Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4." 4.5 Environment Policy 13 states: "Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted." 4.6 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Lezayre Parish Commissioners do not object to the planning application. 5.1 5.2 Highway Services do not oppose the planning application. 6.0 ASSESSMENT The dwelling currently under construction was not approved with a garage. Once complete, permitted development rights will apply to the new dwelling. Under Article 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 C'the PDO"), garages of 36sqm in size and with eaves of 2.9m or lower can be built without the need to submit a planning application (although they are subject to a number of criteria other than just these size thresholds). At 62.4sqm, and with eaves at 3.3m above ground level, the proposed garage is far in excess of that allowed under permitted development rights. 6.1 14/00138/B 12 May 2014 Page 3 of 5

==== PAGE 4 ====

However, the question is very much what would be appropriate in terms of garaging for a dwelling of the size currently under construction. Extensive pre-application advice was given to the agent, with the initial design concept being a triple garage with accommodation above and a far higher ridge line than that submitted as part of the current application. Such a size was identified to the agent as being wholly inappropriate, especially given the history of the site and the various issues regarding visual impact of proposed dwellings in this highly sensitive landscape. It is therefore welcome that this advice was heeded and a far smaller and more subservient design was submitted for formal consideration. 6.2 It is considered that the traditional materials, with grey slate tiles and Manx stone facings, proposed are appropriate for the setting and also judged against the materials of the dwelling the proposed garage would sit alongside. Having considered the lack of information regarding the proposed garage doors, the agent initially advised that these were to be white metal but, on negotiation, agreed that natural timber doors would be acceptable. In the absence of an annotation to this effect on the submitted plans, it is recommended that a condition be attached ensuring that the garage doors are timber should an approval be forthcoming. (It is worth noting that permitted development rights in respect of the replacement of garage doors apply only where the garage is attached to or integral with its associated dwelling.) The garage's design, too, is considered appropriate in that its proportions broadly respect one another and give the impression of a generally traditional approach. While the size proposed is still perhaps a trifle large, an assessment of the relative size of the garage to the dwelling shows that the former would not look unduly large or prominent next to the latter, and therefore no objection is raised on the issues of design or massing. 6.3 The planning history of the site is noteworthy, as is the location of the garage some 5.3m from the main dwelling. It seems conceivable that a planning application could be submitted to connect the two buildings and thereby provide a dwelling more akin to the size that has been previously sought by the applicant here. It is also true that such a concern might not exist to the same degree were the proposed garage sat closer alongside (or even adjacent) the dwelling it is to serve. However, it is considered that the planning system has sufficient controls to make the right and proper assessments on this point should such an application be submitted and - which is perhaps the key point in the absence of such an application - the location of the proposed garage is not in itself judged likely to cause undue visual harm. 6.4 Flooding was a key issue in the determination of the approval for the dwelling currently under construction. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) was submitted as part of that application, which recommended that the finished floor level (FFL) of the new dwelling be 28,3m above the local datum point. This was duly shown on the approved plans and, as such, no such condition was required on this matter. No other recommendations in respect of flood mitigation measures were considered required by the authors of the FRA; the Water & Sewerage Authority (as it then was) agreed with this conclusion. The current application does not given floor levels but does provide an elevation showing the proposed garage as being on the same level as the approved dwelling. This in itself is acceptable but, in the absence of plans showing any FFL, it is considered appropriate to require by condition that the garage, if approved, be 28.3m above the local datum point. 6.5 7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 It is recommended that the planning application be approved. 12 May 2014 14/00138/B Page 4 of 5

==== PAGE 5 ====

8.0 PARTY STATUS 8.1 Highway Services is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2013, Article 6(4)(d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded interested person status. 8.2 The local authority, Lezayre Parish Commissioners, is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, Article 6(4)(e), considered an "Interested Persons" and as such should be afforded Interested Person Status. 9.0 UPDATE Planning Committee determined that the application should be refused as the proposed garage was too large for the dwelling it would serve. The eaves and the pitch were considered to be too high and the size and scale of the proposed garage would be such as to unduly harm the surrounding area. 9.1 Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 29.04.2014 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals R 1. The size and scale of the garage would be proportionately too large In visual terms relative to the dwelling that it would serve and would have an unduly negative impact on the surrounding area, contrary to General Policy 2(b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2007). 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. Committee Meeting Date : Decision Made Signed Presenting Officfer, • A Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required, signing officer to delete as appropriate YES/NO 14/00138/B 12 May 2014 Page 5 of 5

==== PAGE 6 ====

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No. : Applicant: Proposal: Site Address: 14/00138/B Mr Victor Yates Erection of a detached garage Hillview Sulby Glen Sulby Isle Of Man IM7 2BB Mr Edmond Riley 19.02.2014 19.02.2014 Planning Committee Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Officer's Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE APPQCATION SITE. 1.0 THE APPUCATION SITE The application site is a parcel of land that will represent the residential curtilage of a detached dwelling currently under construction. It is located on the eastern side of Sulby Glen Road to the south of Sulby Village, Lezayre. 1.1 2.0 THE PROPOSAL Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a double garage to serve the dwelling currently under construction, measuring 8m in width and 7.8m in depth, with an eaves height of 3.3m and a ridgeline height of 6.5m. The roof material would be natural grey slate, while the doors would be of an unspecified material and colour and one side elevation faced in Manx stone; the other side elevation - that facing the dwelling - would be rendered and painted white or cream to match the dwelling, as would the rear elevation. One side door and two rear windows are also proposed. The rear building line of the garage would match that of the rear of the dwelling. 2.1 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY The site has been the subject of three previous planning applications that are considered material to the assessment of this current planning application: 3.1 • Planning application 09/01021/B sought planning approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling. This previous planning application was refused on the 20th April 2010. The stated reason for refusal was: Reason for refusal 1: "The proposal would result in a replacement dwelling of an excessive scale which would detract from the character and appearance of the area by reason of its design, size and massing, and resultant increased visual impact. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Housing Policy 14 8i Environmental Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and Planning Circular 3/91." Page 1 of 5 14/00138/B 29 April 2014

==== PAGE 7 ====

• Planning application 11/01461/B sought planning approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling and detached garage. This previous planning application was refused on the 13th June 2012. A subsequent appeal against the refusal was dismissed by the Minister, in accordance with the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector, with the appeal refusal decision issued on the 22nd October 2012. The four stated reasons for refusal were: Reason for refusal 1: "The proposal is contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development, if approved, would represent unwarranted encroachment into the countryside to the detriment of the character of the landscape." Reason for refusal 2: "The proposal is contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that it has not been demonstrated that there is an overriding national need in land use planning terms to justify setting aside this policy which requires the protection of the countryside for its own sake." Reason for refusal 3: "The proposal is contrary to Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development, if approved, would be detrimental to the character, appearance and landscape of this area of countryside by reason of its scale, massing, siting and design." Reason for refusal 4: "The proposal is contrary to Policies 2-7 of Planning Circular 3/91 in that the proposed development, if approved, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of this area of countryside by reason of its scale, massing, design and form." • Planning application 13/00289/B sought planning approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling. This previous planning application was approved at Planning Committee on 22nd April 2013, and was subject to the two standard conditions in respect of approved plans and the time limit for commencing development. The case officer's report into this application noted that the reduction in size and resulting re­ design of the dweiling to a smaller and traditional form ultimately meant that the reasons for refusal no longer applied as the dwelling was less than 50% greater in size than the existing dwelling and did not encroach unnecessarily into the countryside. Members of Planning Committee also noted the opinion expressed at the Planning Committee by the presenting officer that the proposed dwelling was an improvement over the existing. The case officer also concluded that the issues of flood risk and access were also satisfactorily addressed. It is also worth noting that the Planning Authority is currently considering an application for a revised design to the dwelling approved under 13/00289 (reference 13/00140) on this same site. This application is recommended for approval and has been taken before Planning Committee given the history of the site. 3.2 4.0 PUNNING POLICY In terms of land use designation the application site is located within wider areas of land that are designated as i) woodland; and ii) high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan). 4.1 The application site is also within an area identified as being at potential risk of flooding from encroachment of flood waters from the north and south rather than direct flooding from the river. 4.2 Page 2 of 5 14/00138/B 29 April 2014

==== PAGE 8 ====

Although the site of the proposed works is zoned as being within the countryside, it is also within a future residential curtilage. As such, while General Policy 3 might normally be applicable, it is judged that the specifics of the proposal are such as to consider the general principles outlined in General Policy 2, which reads (in part): "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: 4.3 b) Respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; Does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape. c) and 9) Does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality." Environment Policy 2 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: 4.4 (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or the location for the development is essential." (b) 4.5 Environment Policy 10 states: "Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4." 4.6 Environment Policy 13 states: "Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted." 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Lezayre Parish Commissioners do not object to the planning application. 5.2 Highway Services do not oppose the planning application. 6.0 ASSESSMENT The dwelling currently under construction was not approved with a garage. Once complete, permitted development rights will apply to the new dwelling, Under Article 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 C'the PDO"), garages of 36sqm in size and with eaves of 2.9m or lower can be built without the need to submit a planning application (although they are subject to a number of criteria other than just these size thresholds). At 62.4sqm, and with eaves at 3.3m above ground level, the proposed garage is far in excess of that allowed under permitted development rights. 6.1 However, the question is very much what would be appropriate in terms of garaging for a dwelling of the size currently under construction. Extensive pre-application advice was given to the agent, with the initial design concept being a triple garage with accommodation above and a far higher ridge line than that submitted as part of the current application. Such a size was identified to the agent as being wholly inappropriate, especially given the history of 6.2 29 April 2014 14/00138/B Page 3 of 5

==== PAGE 9 ====

the site and the various issues regarding visual impact of proposed dwellings in this highly sensitive landscape. It is therefore welcome that this advice was heeded and a far smaller and more subservient design was submitted for formal consideration. It is considered that the traditional materials, with grey slate tiles and Manx stone facings, proposed are appropriate for the setting and also judged against the materials of the dwelling the proposed garage would sit alongside. Having considered the lack of information regarding the proposed garage doors, the agent initially advised that these were to be white metal but, on negotiation, agreed that natural timber doors would be acceptable. In the absence of an annotation to this effect on the submitted plans, it is recommended that a condition be attached ensuring that the garage doors are timber should an approval be forthcoming. (It is worth noting that permitted development rights in respect of the replacement of garage doors apply only where the garage is attached to or integral with its associated dwelling.) The garage's design, too, is considered appropriate in that its proportions broadly respect one another and give the impression of a generally traditional approach. While the size proposed is still perhaps a trifle large, an assessment of the relative size of the garage to the dwelling shows that the former would not look unduly large or prominent next to the latter, and therefore no objection is raised on the issues of design or massing. 6.3 The planning history of the site is noteworthy, as is the location of the garage some 5.3m from the main dwelling. It seems conceivable that a planning application could be submitted to connect the two buildings and thereby provide a dwelling more akin to the size that has been previously sought by the applicant here. It is also true that such a concern might not exist to the same degree were the proposed garage sat closer alongside (or even adjacent) the dwelling it is to serve. However, it is considered that the planning system has sufficient controls to make the right and proper assessments on this point should such an application be submitted and - which is perhaps the key point in the absence of such an application - the location of the proposed garage is not in itself judged likely to cause undue visual harm. 6.4 Flooding was a key Issue in the determination of the approval for the dwelling currently under construction, A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) was submitted as part of that application, which recommended that the finished floor level (FFL) of the new dwelling be 28.3m above the local datum point. This was duly shown on the approved plans and, as such, no such condition was required on this matter. No other recommendations in respect of flood mitigation measures were considered required by the authors of the FRA; the Water & Sewerage Authority (as it then was) agreed with this conclusion. The current application does not given floor levels but does provide an elevation showing the proposed garage as being on the same level as the approved dwelling. This in itself is acceptable but, in the absence of plans showing any FFL, it is considered appropriate to require by condition that the garage, if approved, be 28,3m above the local datum point. 6.5 7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 It is recommended that the planning application be approved. 8.0 PARTY STATUS Highway Services is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2013, Article 6(4)(d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded interested person status. 8.1 The local authority, Lezayre Parish Commissioners, is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, Article 6(4)(e), considered an "Interested Persons" and as such should be afforded Interested Person Status, 8.2 14/00138/B Page 4 of 5 29 April 2014

==== PAGE 10 ====

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 29.04.2014 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R; Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Reason: Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. The garage door hereby approved shall be of natural timber, Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. This approval relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 4th February 2014: Y/331/2 and Y/331/12. 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: Committee MeetingD Signed : Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is requiredi signing officer to delete as appropriate 29 April 2014 14/00138/B Page 5 of 5