Planning Officer Report

Planning Officer Report And Recommendations {{table:378467}}

Officer's Report

The Application Site

1. The application site is the residential curtilage of Faaie Wyllin, a single storey detached property sited on the western side of Glen Road, Ballaugh.
2. The existing dwelling is set back 13 metres from the highway and has a significant level of screening in the form of tall mature trees on all sides.
3. The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of properties of different forms, layout and appearance.

The Proposal

1. The planning application seeks the approval for the erection of an extension to provide an attached covered drive/carport and double garage on the southern elevation of the existing dwelling.
2. The proposed extension would be erected on the western part of the southern elevation and would project just more than 11 metres from the main dwellinghouse. The proposed extension would have a width of just more than 6 metres and would increase the floor area of the existing dwelling by 71.25 sq m. The proposed garage and covered drive extension would have a maximum height of 5.1 metres.
3. The new proposed extension would be finished in all materials to match that of the main dwellinghouse.

Planning History

1. The application site has not been the subject of four previous planning applications, all of which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this planning application and was granted planning permission:

PA 11/01268/B: Erection of a detached double garage with workshop. This planning application was refused on the grounds that given the siting, size and design of the proposal it would be tantamount to the creation of a new residential dwelling in an area not zoned for

development. It would result in an inappropriate development in the countryside contrary to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and the Isle of Man Development Plan.

PA 09/00711/B: Erection of detached garage with office, toilet \& kitchenette above. This previous planning application was refused on the grounds that the proposal is contrary to both adopted general planning policy within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and The Isle of Man Development Plan, which seek to restrict such development within the countryside. Approval of the planning application which is tantamount to the creation of a new residential dwelling would set an undesirable precedent for further such inappropriate development in the countryside.

PA 09/00710/B: Conversion of garage to provide additional living accommodation. This previous planning application was permitted.

PA 91/01097/B: Alterations and extensions. This previous planning application was permitted.

Planning Policy

1. The application site is in an area designated as part Woodland and part Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance under the 1982 Isle of Man Development Plan.
2. In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains five policies that are considered specifically relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:

General Policy 3

"Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

• (a) Essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);
• (b) Conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
• (c) Previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;
• (d) The replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);
• (e) Location-dependant development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
• (f) Building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;
• (g) Development recognised to be of over-riding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and
• (h) Buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."

Environment Policy 1 states: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an overriding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."

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:

• (a) The development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or
• (b) The location for the development is essential."

Environment Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural or semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value."

Housing Policy 16 states: "The extension of non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public."

Representations

1. Ballaugh Parish Commissioners and the Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not oppose the current planning application.
2. The owner/occupier of Ballathoar Court has objected to the current planning application on the grounds that the proposal would intrude on the light of Ballathoar Court should a second floor be added at a later date, excessive building on site and a lack of ready vehicular access in relation to the width of Ballaugh Glen and potential noise from the maintenance and repair work to motorcycles which would further jeopardise the quiet enjoyment of Ballathoar Court. Further representations have been received from the owner/occupier of Ballathoar Court raising complaints over the display of the site notice and note that the site notice from PA 11/01268/B is still erected with the site notice for the current planning application not on display.

Assessment

1. The key issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; 1) Impact of the proposed development on the amenities of neighbouring property Ballathoar Court; 2) The impacts of the proposal on the existing dwelling; and 3) The impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding area.
2. Ballathoar Court is located 40 metres south of the existing dwelling and would be sited 30 metres south of the proposed extension. The application site and neighbouring property are bounded by a large belt of mature trees on the southern and northern boundary retrospectively.
3. The proposed extension would only be partially visible from Ballathoar Court and given the orientation and distance between the properties the proposed development is not considered to detrimentally impact upon the residential amenity of the residents of the neighbouring property.
4. Concerns were raised by the owner/occupier of Ballathoar Court with regards to the loss of light if n additional storey were to be added to the proposed extension. The erection of an additional storey would be subject to a planning application and assessed on its own merit. A planning application cannot simply be refused on the grounds of what may occur. The

owner/occupier of Ballathoar Court also objected to the planning application with regards to the width of Ballaugh Glen being impassable by two oncoming cars and therefore a lack of readily vehicular access. The proposed includes the creation of two parking spaces in the form of a double garage as well as the site being able to provide parking for a number of vehicles. The proposed development does not compromise any parking or vehicular access onto the highway from the application site or accessing the highway from the application site. The final concern related to the noise issues from the maintenance and repair of motor vehicles as the applicant refers to the garage verbally as a workshop. The drawings detail that the proposed garage would be used for the parking of vehicles and not a workshop. There is sufficient distance between the application site and Ballathoar Court for the noise not to warrant a reason a refusal and in addition the significant boundary of trees would distort the sound of engines. The repair work of any motor vehicles would not produce a greater amount of sound than a petrol fuelled ride on lawn mower for example. Concerns relating to the form of the building are addressed in paragraph 16 and 17.

1. In regards of the proposal to the existing dwelling, the proposed garage extension and creation of a covered driveway is deemed to respect Faaie Wyllin in terms of siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them. Whilst the proposed extension would add a further 71.25 sq m to the floor space of the existing dwelling, it is not considered to appear as an overbearing feature or deter from the appearance of the dwelling; the proposed extension would remain single storey and be finished in all materials to match the main dwelling and therefore the development is deemed acceptable.
2. As previously mentioned the application site has a significant level of screening on all sides from large mature trees and natural vegetation resulting in only partial views of the application site gained. Minimal views of the proposed extension would be visible from small sections of Ballaugh Glen Road and would no doubt increase the impact of the dwelling as viewed by the public,however it is not judged to be of a scale to cause any undue harm to public amenity or deter from the character and quality of the landscape. Given that the proposed extension is deemed to respect the main dwellinghouse and not appear as an out of keeping within its surroundings, the proposal is deemed to be an acceptable form of development and judged to overcome the exceptions set out in General Policy 3 and comply with the provisions of Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2 that seek to protect the countryside against unwarranted development and Housing Policy 16.
3. As previously mentioned the proposed garage and covered drive extension is deemed to respect the main dwellinghouse and is in keeping with the architectural style and design of the application site property. All things considered the proposed garage is deemed a relatively modest form of development and although the development would be partially visible from certain sections of the Ballaugh Glen Road, it is not judged to harm the visual amenities of the area and character and quality of the Street Scene.
4. The display of the site notice is a procedural issue and not a material planning consideration and would hold to weight in the determination of the planning application. The applicant has been informed of the requirement to display the site notice, however it is understood from the owners/occupiers of Ballathoar Court that the site notice has never been displayed during the statutory 21 day consultation period. As previously mentioned, the fact that no site notice has not been displayed would not warrant a reason for refusal.

Recommendation

1. It is recommended that the planning application be permitted.

Party Status

1. The local authority, Douglas Borough Council, is by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5)(d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.

1. The Highways Division is part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is also part. As such, the Highways Division should not be afforded separate party status.

1. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status:

The owner/occupier of Ballathoar Court, immediate neighbour to the application site Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 09.04.2013 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 permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2. This approval for the alterations to the existing garage and erection of a covered driveway and attached double garage relate to drawing nos 07-1741-04 and 13/2052/01 both date stamped 6th March 2013.

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

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 17-4-13 Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed : __________________________ Signed : __________________________ Sarah Corlett

Anthony Holmes

17 April 2013 13/00280/B Page 5 of 6

Senior Planning Officer	Senior Planning Officer
Signed :...	Signed :...
Michael Gallagher	Jennifer Chance
Director of Planning and Building Control	Development Control Manager