228492

==== PAGE 1 ====

11 September 2014 14/00782/B Page 1 of 6 PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 14/00782/B Applicant : Moonacre Ltd Proposal : Erection of a detached garage with living accommodation over Site Address : Brae Villa Tromode Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 5EJ

Case Officer : Miss Melissa McKnight Photo Taken : 30.07.2014 Site Visit : 30.07.2014 Expected Decision Level :

Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Brae Villa, a detached dwelling sited on the south western side of Tromode Road in Douglas.

1.2 The application site is set in roughly 0.2 acre plot. To the north east of the dwelling are semi-detached dwellings, to the south east are a mix of detached and semi-detached properties and immediately to the west of the application site are two detached dwellings.

1.3 The site is bounded by walling and a linear line of mature trees on the south western side, walling along the north eastern side and trees along the western and north western sides.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a flat roofed detached garage with living accommodation above that would accommodate two bedrooms, one bathroom and a living and dining area.

2.2 The garage would be erected in the south eastern part of the garden and would have a depth of just less than 9.2 metres, width of 7.5 metres and height of just less than 5.3 metres.

2.3 The ground floor of the garage would be finished with a cream rendered block work and the first floor finished with cedar cladding.

2.4 The front elevation would comprise a timber up and over door to the ground level and two white UPVC windows to the first floor. The south east elevation would have a UPVC door, the rear elevation would have four windows - two to each floor and there would be a small window installed at first floor on the western elevation.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

==== PAGE 2 ====

11 September 2014 14/00782/B Page 2 of 6 3.1 The application site has been the subject of eight previous planning applications which have been listed below:

PA 09/01820/A: Approval in principle for the erection of two detached dwellings - approved

PA 08/00421/A: Approval in principle to erect two detached dwellings in garden area of Brae Villa - Refused

PA 07/01101/A: Approval in principle for a residential development with associated parking to replace existing dwelling -Refused

PA 09/00163/B: Erection of dwelling with garage in garden to rear of Brae Villa - approved

PA 06/00534/A: Approval in principle for the erection of block of ten apartments with associated basement parking facilities to replace existing dwelling - Refused

PA 02/01113/B: Re-roof dwelling with different materials - approved

PA 04/00105/A: Approval in principle for the erection of two residential buildings of up to ten apartments each, and parking to replace existing dwelling - approved

PA 91/00053/B: Construction of conservatory - approved

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Douglas Borough Council has no objection to the current planning application.

4.2 The Department of Infrastructure Highway Services do not oppose the current planning application.

4.3 Manx Utilities wish to express their interest in the planning application.

5.0 PLANNING POLICY

5.1 The application site is located in an area zoned as Predominantly Residential under the Douglas Local Plan Order 1998 Map No. 2 (South).

5.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains two policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:

General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: a) Is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; b) Respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; c) Does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; d) Does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; e) Does not affect adversely public views of the sea; f) Incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; g) Does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;

==== PAGE 3 ====

11 September 2014 14/00782/B Page 3 of 6 h) Provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; i) Does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; j) Can be provided with all necessary services; k) Does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; l) Is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) Takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) Is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.

Environment Policy 42 states: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."

6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 Given the nature and level of development proposed there are four fundamental issues to consider which are:

The visual impact of the development on the street scene of Tromode Road and surrounding area; 2) The impact of the development on neighbouring residential amenity; 3) The impact of the garage on the existing dwelling; and 4) The use of the building.

6.2 IMPACT UPON STREET SCENE

6.2.1 As one travels northwest along Tromode Road, the proposed garage would not be generally visible given the significant boundary treatment and screening along the south eastern edge of the site. Also, travelling south east along Tromode Road, the detached garage would not be readily visible given the siting of the garage set back and slightly below the highway, and as a result of tall north eastern boundary wall. However, given that trees do not have indefinite lives, there can be no guarantee that the building would not become more apparent in the street scene in the future.

6.2.2 As of today, the garage would only be visible from the junction of Douglas Avenue and by those who would be directly opposite the access into the application site.

6.2.3 The garage proposed would have a footprint of approximately 69 square metres (sqm), similar to that of an average dwelling. Consequently, it is considered that this would introduce an unwarranted and intrusive feature which also results in the loss of some garden space. Although the garage would only visible from limited points, what would be visible is considered to have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the street scene of Tromode Road.

6.2.4 Not only would the proposal introduce a new building, but it is poorly designed given its context. The flat roof and block design is not in keeping with Brae Villa or within the street scene. Overall, it is considered the proposal in terms of its design, size and position results in an adverse visual impact upon the amenities of the area. It is acknowledged that Green Meadows and Ashfield may not be considered to be of great architectural merit; however it

==== PAGE 4 ====

11 September 2014 14/00782/B Page 4 of 6 does not give automatic justification to allow further buildings that are not considered to be appropriate that could create cumulative visual harm.

6.2.5 In conclusion, whilst the garage may only be visible from the junction of Douglas Avenue and directly adjacent to the access of Brae Villa, what would be visible is not considered to be acceptable and is judged to harm the appearance of the street scene of Tromode Road and public amenity in general.

6.3 NEIGHBOURING RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

6.3.1 With regards to neighbouring residential amenity, it is considered that the two most potentially affected properties would be Tree Cassyn and Green Meadows. Tree Cassyn neighbours the application site to the south west and would be roughly 30 metres from the garage. The substantial tree boundary between the application site and Tree Cassyn means that views of the garage are limited, if any and in turn the garage is not deemed to impact upon the residential amenity currently enjoyed by Tree Cassyn.

6.3.2 Green Meadows is a semi-detached dwelling located just less than 5 metres south east of the application site, roughly 8 metres from the detached garage. The south western boundary of the application site is made up of a number of mature tall trees along with hedging. A site visit was conducted, and again it is unlikely that full views of the garage would be attainable from Green Meadows, if any views of the garage are attained then they would not be considered to be of a scale that would harm the residential amenity of Green Meadows.

6.4 EXISTING DWELLING AND USE OF THE GARAGE

6.4.1 The garage would be erected in the south eastern part of the garden, directly in front of the garage is a fully paved area. At present, Brae Villa has a garden space of approximately 416sqm based on the location plan provided. Although the garage would have a footprint of 69sqm the immediate areas around the garage would not be useable, therefore the total footprint of the development would equate to roughly 126sqm. As such there would be a 30% loss with the majority of remaining garden, located south, south west, northwest of the main dwelling having to be shared between both the main house and new living unit.

6.4.2 The garage appears large in comparison with the dwelling and of a completely different character to the existing dwelling. The finished materials of the garage are not judged to complement the form, character and appearance of the existing dwelling and therefore the proposal is considered to undermine the existing enjoyment and overall appearance of the dwelling and constitute overdevelopment and over intensification of the site.

6.4.3 The application describes a new garage with a granny annex over. What is proposed is not an annex; an annex would be attached to the main house and would rely on the main house for amenities. From the drawings submitted it is considered that the proposed works would be tantamount to the creation of a new self-contained residential unit and could be used as a second unit of accommodation without a further application, resulting in two households on the site with the living accommodation being able to practically and viably operate on its own.

6.4.4 As previously mentioned, two bedrooms, a bathroom and a kitchen/lounge would be proposed. Generally, if a building, or part of a building, contains sufficient facilities to be used in a self-contained manner then they are generally considered to be a separate planning unit. It needs to be remembered that planning permission runs with the land and the building will remain long after the current owners cease to have an interest in the property. The long term use of the building must be a consideration in the determination of this current planning

==== PAGE 5 ====

11 September 2014 14/00782/B Page 5 of 6 application. Further to this point, if in time the building is used independently from Brae Villa, then this independent use could become lawful, and could cause concern of the amenity which would result from having two independent dwellings in such close proximity to each other. Whilst a condition could be attached tying the unit to the main dwelling house, this would be very difficult to enforce and the fact remains that the building itself could become self-contained and would not rely on the main dwellinghouse for anything and is as proposed effectively just this.

6.4.5 Whilst the proposed development would be located within an area designated as Predominantly Residential one must recognise that this proposed building would be erected in an existing garden, forming inappropriate backland development and would be just 1.9 metres from the main dwellinghouse and would have limited private amenity space contrary to the provisions set out in Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.

6.4.6 In addition, the positioning of the buildings not only leaves inadequate private amenity space for the main dwelling, but results in an unacceptable relationship between the units. Furthermore, the proposed unit and existing dwelling would be served purely by a single access. This is generally an unacceptable situation given the level and scale of development proposed.

7.0 OTHER MATTERS

7.1 The proposed front elevation shows that there would be a garage door with a width of 4.9 metres and height of just less than 2.1 metres. However, the proposed ground floor plan shows that the front elevation would have two separate windows/doors. As such there is an inaccuracy with the drawings submitted and if the application should be approved then an amended drawing should be submitted to regularise this mistake.

8.0 CONCLUSIONS

8.1 The proposed building would represent over development on the site and is not judged to respect Brae Villa in terms of siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around. The level and nature and location of proposed development is deemed unacceptable with the proposed building providing inadequate levels amenity for both the proposed living accommodation and main dwelling. In addition, the proposed building would be tantamount to a new dwelling with the siting not suitable for such development.

9.0 RECOMMENDATION

9.1 Overall it is concluded that the planning application fails to accord with the provisions set out in General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and as such the application is recommended for refusal.

10.0 PARTY STATUS

10.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application, Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.

Recommendation

==== PAGE 6 ====

11 September 2014 14/00782/B Page 6 of 6

Recommended Decision:

Refused

Date of Recommendation:

05.09.2014

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 erection of a detached garage with first floor ancillary accommodation above represents an inappropriate form of backland development by reason of its form, design, relationship with the main dwellinghouse, layout and failing to provide levels of adequate amenity for both the new building and existing dwelling and as such fails to meet the provisions set out in General Policy 2 (b, g , h) and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.

R 2. The proposed unit, by virtue of its form, design and siting within a prominent position in the street scenes is unsympathetic with the character of the site and an out of keeping feature therefore would cause a detrimental impact to the visual amenities of the street scene contrary to General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

--

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer.

Decision Made : Refused

Date : ...

Determining officer (delete as appropriate)

Signed :... Chris Balmer

Senior Planning Officer

Signed :... Sarah Corlett

Senior Planning Officer

Signed :... Michael Gallagher

Director of Planning and Building Control

Signed :... Jennifer Chance

Head of Development Management