Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/00407/B
Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/00407/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs John Coleman Proposal : Erection of extensions to dwelling to create additional living accommodation and gym Site Address : 60 Groudle Road Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 2EZ
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 27.05.2015 Site Visit : 27.05.2015 Expected Decision Level :
Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 60 Groudle Road, Onchan, which is a recently constructed dwelling sat considerably down from the highway; it is the westernmost of six detached dwellings, all of which were built at the same time. The garden - entirely to the eastern side rear - overlooks open fields to the north. The dwelling is contemporary in design and, with hipped roof and stone and render detailing, is fairly compact and proportional in form.
1.2 There are dwellings to the west and east, but only the former (30 Groudle View) readily visible from the location of the proposed works.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a double storey extension to the eastern elevation and a single storey extension to the western side elevation. The latter would comprise a gym with sauna and WC. There would be a single pair of French doors opening out onto the garden, and this would provide the only access to the extension. It would be finished with a hipped roof and would sit alongside the retaining wall that the dwelling abuts to the south; the stone detailing around the base of the dwelling would be continued around, as would the render band detail.
2.2 The larger extension would provide for an enlarged kitchen and balcony at the upper storey along with a living / dining room (to include kitchen units), a bedroom and a bathroom at the lower storey. This would more or less continue the roof pitch on the eastern elevation, while the extended kitchen would have a significant portion of glazing on both the side and rear elevations, but primarily to the rear facing the open view in that direction. There is no independent access to the additional accommodation proposed for the lower storey.
2.3 The walls would be rendered, and the roofs tiled, to match the existing dwelling.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/00407/B
Page 2 of 7
3.1 The site has not been the subject of any applications considered of material relevance to the determination of the current application.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4.1 Under the Onchan Local Plan the application site is zoned as Low Density Housing in Parkland. The application site forms part of housing area 6, which comprises the land between Lakeside and Groudle Glen. Policy O/RES/P/4 of Planning Circular 1/2000, which forms the written statement to be read in conjunction with the Onchan Local Plan, states:
"Development of the piece of land which lies between the site referred to in 4.14 and 4.47 above, Groudle Glen, Groudle Road and the bridge over Groudle River will be considered acceptable for low density housing in parkland in accordance with Planning Circular 8/89 and where no development is erected within 80 metres of the Groudle River. The boundary between the site and Groudle Road must be formed by a sod hedge, either that which currently exists or one reconstructed as part of the development. The site must also have on its northern part a significant area of public open space contiguous with that proposed as part of the development of the adjoining land".
The proposed works are in excess of 80m from the Groudle River.
4.2 There is also a zoning that indicates the site is within an Area of Ecological Interest / Semi-Natural Vegetation.
4.3 In view of this and the nature of the proposal, General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan are considered relevant. GP2 states, 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:
(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; (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."
4.4 Environment Policy 4 states in full: "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:
(a) species and habitats of international importance: (i) protected species of international importance or their habitats; or (ii) proposed or designated Ramsar and Emerald Sites or other internationally important sites. (b) species and habitats of national importance: (i) protected species of national importance or their habitats; (ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or (iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or (iv) National Trust Land. (c) species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a corridor between habitats.
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/00407/B
Page 3 of 7
"Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward."
5.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 The Senior Biodiversity Officer within the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture was contacted for their comments on the proposal in view of its Local Plan zoning. On 1st June 2015, he commented as follows: "The AEI was zoned prior to the house being developed there. More recently, a Wildlife Site has been designated, which excludes this mown grass/flower bed garden area. The AEI is therefore out of date and not of concern with regard to this application, the Wildlife Site forming the relevant boundary to note.
"There are lots of lizard records along this road, but presumably the hedges won't be affected."
5.2 Highway Services offered no objection to the proposal on 28th April 2015.
5.3 The agent to the application independently contacted the MUA for advice. On June 9th, the Department was sent their comments, which read as follows: "The drainage system serving the 6 properties at the far end of Groudle Road is private and I understand is the responsibility of the various property owners to maintain as such Manx Utilities do have any further details of the drainage system in the area.
"However you are correct in stating that the bio-disc will have a throttled output and therefore the risk of any flooding affecting downstream properties is minimal. The additional discharge from WC's, WHB's & a shower will be minimal and I would consider this to be similar to any house extension across the Island where it is proposed to add additional toilets etc but the occupancy basically and peak dsicharge basically remains the same."
5.4 Onchan District Commissioners offered no objection to the proposal on 29th April 2015.
5.5 The owner / occupier of Eskadale, 62 Groudle Road (to the east), has objected to the application on several grounds: the development does not respect local context and street pattern and would be overbearing and out of keeping with the area; they feel they would be overlooked to an excessive degree from the kitchen and balcony area; the proposal would mark a significant change of use of the original building; they also raise traffic concerns and are worried that the proposal could overload the drains and soakaways and also that the construction work would be disruptive.
In response to these concerns, the applicants' agent have provided a responding letter, dated 27th May 2015. This states that there is sufficient capacity within the existing bio disc system and so no issues should arise with respect to flooding or sewage overloading. The letter also indicates that the extension overlooks the kitchen of no.62 as the dwellings are 'handed' in this manner, while the distances between the habitable windows, at 33.8m, are sufficient to protect privacy. They indicate also that the extension would offer the applicants' parents a little independence when they come to visit and also create an internal and external environment that enables the views to the north to be properly captured, in a way that is not current easily done - reference is made to the dwelling being, in effect, 'upside down' as well.
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/00407/B
Page 4 of 7
Subsequently (on 29th May 2015), an email was received from the agent, clarifying that "...the lower ground floor 'granny flat' is only to be used for parents and relatives visits - hence the access is from within the existing house via a staircase. In addition [the applicant] would have no objection to a condition of approval which restricts its use as ancillary to the main dwelling and not to be separately let."
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The site is zoned as Low Density Housing in Parkland. In this, it is fair to say that the dwellings and their grounds are perhaps smaller than might be expected of such areas, although they are by no means diminutive. However, such a zoning does mean that care needs to be taken within ensuring that any extensions would not have the effect of harmfully changing the nature of the area. A key assessment point will be whether or not approval would have been granted for the dwelling as proposed to be extended at the original time when the dwelling was approved: i.e. would the dwelling, as proposed to now be altered, still be properly considered appropriate for an area zoned as Low Density Housing in Parkland?
6.2 Also important are matters relating to the protection of the living conditions of neighbouring properties as would normally be the case for any proposed extensions within a built-up setting. It is true that 'interface distances' between dwellings in areas of lower density are likely to be longer than the 'rule of thumb' 20m normally expected given the feeling of openness that is generally expected in such lower density areas.
6.3 Turning first to the two-storey extension, the new side elevation to the dwelling would be 5.4m further east than is currently the case. The four existing windows (two on each floor) and balcony would be replaced by five windows (three at lower storey level) along with two glazed panels within the enlarged kitchen and an enlarged balcony. In terms of windows facing one another, the distance at present between nos.60 and 62 Groudle Road stands at roughly 36m, and this would be reduced to roughly 31m under the proposals. This, even with the additional fenestration proposed, is considered to be sufficient to not have an unduly harmful impact on the living conditions on those residing at 62 Groudle Road. While there would be an impact on their amenity, and - as noted - interface distances between dwellings in areas of lower density are generally expected to be higher than the 20m 'rule of thumb' normally applied, the 31m distance is judged sufficient to maintain an appropriate relationship between the two dwellings.
6.4 The fact that the additional fenestration is fairly limited is also to the proposal's benefit. While the additional glazing to the extended kitchen along with the proposed extended balcony is certainly not ideal, it cannot be ignored that there is already a balcony and four windows facing in this direction such that the alteration from the existing situation is not significantly different. It is also noted that vast majority of the enlarged balcony will run to the rear of 60 Groudle Road rather than extended rearwards from the dwelling such that the impact on neighbouring living conditions will be lessened as a result.
6.5 In view of the above, it is not considered that the proposed eastern extension would be unduly harmful to the living conditions of people living at no.62 Groudle Road, and for very similar reasons nor could the extension be considered to have an overbearing impact or one that would suggest the dwelling as proposed to be altered would not have been approved in this form when originally built. The extension is fairly modest relative to the existing dwelling and would sit comfortably within its own footprint, and would not affect the nature of the built environment here. Indeed, it would not be readily discernible from close by given the significant fall in topography from the highway; any other views would be from far further afield to the north.
==== PAGE 5 ====
15/00407/B
Page 5 of 7
6.6 As noted in paragraph 2.2 of this report, the additional accommodation proposed would be very closely tied in with the existing dwelling, and, located at the lower floor, would have its only access from within the rear garden of the property, which is itself not easily accessible and to which an independent access would be difficult to provide. Although it might be used by relatives of the applicants, the fact that there is no independent access here means that the additional rooms could at no point be used as a self-contained unit without a separate planning approval to create such an access. Also, given the arrangement of the site relative to the topography here, any such access would actually be very difficult to provide, especially with respect to independent parking areas, and would in all likelihood attract very significant officer concern in respect of this, but also in respect of the nature of the area as being Low Density Housing in Parkland.
6.7 The applicant has indicated that a condition requiring the application site remain in single occupancy and remain incidental to the main house would be acceptable, and one is therefore recommended accordingly.
6.8 In terms of its form, the western extension is modest and would sit comfortably alongside the existing dwelling, which already has a varied roof form and footprint such that an addition of the kind proposed would not unsettle its appearance or proportions as a result. The loss of part of the stone chimney is regrettable but it would be largely retained and therefore no objection is raised to this.
6.9 The fact the extension can only be accessed from outside the dwelling is a little unusual but this is evidently the approach sought by the applicant and it would be inappropriate to object to the application on this basis alone.
6.10 The only people whose living conditions might be affected by the proposal are those living at 30 Groudle View but, (i) with an existing bank screening the extension in part, (ii) with just one side window (replacing two currently) and (iii) the fact that no.30 has a blank gable directly facing the site means that there could not be any meaningful reduction in the quality of the living conditions of those living in that dwelling. The distance between the dwellings (26m, to include the proposed western extension) is also ample in this instance.
6.11 With respect to the environmental sensitivity of the site, the proposals would not affect the hedgerows that seem to be of most concern in terms of providing an important habitat for lizards in the area, and the Wildlife Site since designated is also not being affected by the proposal.
6.12 The comments made by the MUA indicate that there should be no concerns from a flooding point of view.
6.13 The issue raised by neighbours in respect of the disturbance created by the construction work is not a material planning consideration. It is also not considered that the extensions proposed would, given their scale relative to the existing dwelling, have a materially harmful impact on surface water drainage in the area.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 In view of the favourable assessment of the proposal on the key issues, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to a condition limiting the new accommodation to the east to being incidental to the main dwelling.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
==== PAGE 6 ====
15/00407/B
Page 6 of 7
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
(a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (DEFA cannot currently be given Interested Person Status); (d) The Highways Division of the Department; and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:
o The owner / occupier of Eskdale House, 62 Groudle Road,Onchan.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 09.06.2015
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.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
==== PAGE 7 ====
15/00407/B
Page 7 of 7
C 2. The eastern extension hereby approved shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes incidental to the residential use of the dwelling at 60 Groudle Road as identified on the approved plans, and shall not at any time be occupied as an independent dwelling unit.
Reason: To ensure proper control of the development and to avoid any future undesirable fragmentation of the curtilage.
--
The development hereby approved relates to the following drawings, date-stamped as having been received 15th April 2015: SC1364/P/00-00, SC1364/P/10-00, SC1364/P/10-01, SC1364/P/10-02, SC1364/P/12-01 and SC1364/P/12-02.
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 : Permitted Date : 09.06.2015
Determining officer (delete as appropriate)
Signed :... Chris Balmer
Senior Planning Officer
Signed :... Sarah Corlett
Senior Planning Officer
Signed : Michael Gallagher Michael Gallagher
Director of Planning and Building Control
Signed :... Jennifer Chance
Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal