38860

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                                 15/00530/B
                                 Page  1  of  6

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 15/00530/B Applicant : Mr Richard Turk Proposal : Erection of an extension and a detached garage to dwelling Site Address : Primrose Cottage Minorca Vale Laxey Isle of Man IM4 7DZ

Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken :

Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level :

Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of a dwelling known as Primrose Cottage, Minorca Vale, Laxey. The dwelling was once a traditionally proposed Manx cottage but has been altered somewhat unsympathetically in the form of a two-storey side extension. Primrose Cottage sits in a fairly prominent position in this attractive part of the village, with its grounds rising quite steeply away in an eastern direction up to a very near horizon.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a two-storey extension to the side of the dwelling and a detached garage, which would be largely set into the hillside. An existing access to the garden would be used to provide access to the garage, with most of the garden proposed to be replaced with a paved driveway.

2.2 The side extension would take the form of a more or less identical extension to that already built, while the windows within the front elevation would be rearranged to a more symmetrical arrangement than is currently the case.

2.3 An amended site plan, showing tree positions as well as levels, was sought and provided following the application's submission. In addition to this, a tree plan was provided along with a roof plan and also some additional photographs of the site. Following receipt of this amended and additional information, the application was re-advertised.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 Approval in Principle was granted to PA 00/02303/A, which sought for a replacement dwelling on the site. This has expired.

3.2 The aforementioned extension was approved under PA 03/00513/B.

4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

4.1 In view of the nature of the proposal and the location of the application site, which falls within an area of Residential land as zoned on the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan, General

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                                 15/00530/B
                                 Page  2  of  6

Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan is relevant: "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; (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."

4.2 It should be noted that the horizon mentioned is zoned as an area of Woodland, another area of which sits just southwest of the site. South of this runs the Manx Electric Railway, which is much higher than the site and from which views of Primrose Cottage are readily apparent.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 The Water Division of the Manx Utilities Authority was contacted for their comment in respect of the nearby culverted watercourse, the existence of which had been identified to the Department (see below), and concern regarding damage to had also been raised. Following a site visit, they could see nothing near the proposed extension that could be at risk, and offered no objection to the proposal on 19th June 2015.

5.2 The owner and occupier of Hollydene, which sits opposite the application site, objected to the application in correspondence received on 26th May 2015. Their representation can be summarised as concern with: visual impact; reduction in light and privacy; the building will be too big for the site and character of the area; there will be damage to an underground water culvert in order to enable the proposed works to take place; it will be difficult to access the site with the commercial vehicles owned by the applicant without using the footpath that is within the ownership of Hollydene; there is no existing driveway as stated on the application; how will the excavator gain access to the site and spoil be removed without causing further disruption? If the works were to go ahead, the vehicles would park outside Hollydene on the highway, which would impair visibility in an area where children are dropped off and picked up.

5.3 Laxey Village Commissioners indicate that they do not oppose the application (04.06.15).

5.4 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services indicate that they do not oppose the application (04.06.15).

6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The existing dwelling has a somewhat lop-sided impression resulting from the two- storey extension. To seek to replicate this on the other side is a reasonably logical approach, even if a more traditional outcome would be 3 or 5 windows across the frontage rather than the 4 proposed. However, aside from the extension between the two projecting gables, which will be a little awkward, the overall design outcome is considered to improve the

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                                 15/00530/B
                                 Page  3  of  6

appearance of the building by resulting in a more proportional acceptable form than is currently the case.

6.2 Concerns regarding loss of light and privacy to the people living in Hollydene are understandable to an extent, but there are a number of factors to consider in assessing the impact thereon. Firstly, the extension would build upon an already existing two-storey building and would not significantly alter the mass of the building from the point of view of loss of direct sunlight. Secondly, the light that would be lost would primarily be in the morning since the sun rises in the east. Thirdly, the steep slope to the east of the site will limit the amount of direct sunlight received in the area in any case. All of these points, but primarily the first one, are such as to conclude that the loss of light from the proposal would be minimal. For the same reason the extension could not be judged to be unduly overbearing.

6.3 In terms of loss of privacy, the only elevation facing any surrounding dwellings (the western elevation) would have no windows, and would in fact block direct views from windows in the existing two-storey extension facing in that direction. The proposal could therefore be said to result in an improvement over the existing situation.

6.4 In view of the above, the extension is considered to be an acceptable alteration, and in some ways represents an improvement in terms of the appearance of Primrose Cottage.

6.5 Turning to the garage, a standalone building forward of an existing property can present an unwelcome addition to a streetscene and also affect views of the property in question. Therefore, the intention to submerge the garage for much of its extent within the existing bank is welcome. Such an approach is innovative and would also not harm the appearance of the site in the same way that a pitched roof garage sat within the front garden would.

6.6 However, the approach does raise two other important questions: first, whether or not the access to the site is acceptable, especially given the concern raised by the neighbour, and second, whether or not the bank and the trees established there could withstand such excavation works as would be required.

6.7 In respect of the first point, the access does appear to be an existing one even if the land to which access is provided would be more appropriately described as garden land rather than a driveway. The access is also onto a private, unadopted lane. It is not considered that the intensification of use of this access that would probably result from the grant of planning approval would be so serious as to warrant an objection. The access could be used more intensively without the grant of planning approval here through additional parking should the applicant so wish. Although there is sympathy with the neighbour's concern with respect to how access to the site is made, this is as more a civil matter than a material Planning consideration. The increase in comings and goings to and from the site that might result will represent just that - an increase, rather than a new problem, and with the site sitting on a fairly busy highway in any case it is not considered that an objection on this point could be sustained.

6.8 Turning to the second point, there would be a suitably limited impact on the trees. The more robust specimens are located on the fringes of the site where works are not proposed. Some self-seeded trees may be lost to make way for the proposed garage but these are of such a scale that they could possibly be removed without licence in any case. Moreover, they are self-seeded and are not of any especial individual merit, although as a collective they do contribute to the amenity of the area. However, even with the limited information provided, it appears that the proposal would not affect the trees considered most worthy of protection on the site.

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                                 15/00530/B
                                 Page  4  of  6

6.9 The loss of this grass would be unfortunate, but two points must be noted. Firstly, it is likely that the grass could be removed without the need to submit an application since such works are generally not considered to comprise 'development' and therefore require no planning approval. (It is not ignored that such works are proposed under the current application, and form a part of it, but the key point is that those works could probably be undertaken independent of a decision being made in respect of this application.)

6.10 Secondly, the area is already really quite green and benefits from a well-grassed bank that appeared to have a number of wild flowers and also established trees within it. The loss of the grass - which in any case is not especially apparent given the wall surrounding the site

• would therefore not result in undue visual harm to the area as a whole. The use of the land for the parking of vehicles might not be the most attractive outcome, but in view of the fact that this could occur on the grass without planning approval (and, indeed, was noted on the site visit as already being in that use) an objection on this ground could probably not be sustained. Therefore, no objection is raised with respect to part (f) of General Policy 2.

6.11 The impact of the works on the culvert, which the MUA are not even clear on the existence of, could not represent a reason to refuse the application.

6.12 Disruption resulting from building works is not a material Planning consideration.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 In view of the generally favourable conclusions in respect of the key issues, it is considered overall that the application does not conflict so significantly with the relevant Development Plan policies such as to recommend its refusal. As such, it is recommended that the application be approved.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

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, in this case, Department of Infrastructure Highway Services and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

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 owner of the following property has sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:

Hollydene, Minorca Hill, Laxey

With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                                 15/00530/B
                                 Page  5  of  6

word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 17.08.2015

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.

--

The development hereby approved relates to the following plans date-stamped as having been received 15th May 2015 and 20th July 2015: Location Plan, T/1202/4 (A) and 04/1202/1.

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:   17.08.2015

Determining officer (delete as appropriate)

Signed :... Chris Balmer

Senior Planning Officer

Signed : Sarah Corlett.

Sarah Corlett

Senior Planning Officer

Signed :... Michael Gallagher

Director of Planning and Building Control

Signed :... Jennifer Chance

Head of Development Management

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                                 15/00530/B
                                 Page  6  of  6