Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/00921/B
Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/00921/B Applicant : Mr Adie Quaye Proposal : Alterations and erection of a two storey extension to provide living and tourist living accommodation to dwelling Site Address : 1 Royal Park Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 3UF
Case Officer : Miss Abigail Morgan Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
1.0 SITE
1.1 The site represents the curtilage of 1 Royal Park, Ramsey which is a detached dormer bungalow located to the western side of Royal Park at the end of the residential cul-de-sac. To the west of the site is the residential property Nr 27 Rheast Mooar Lane.
2.0 PLANNING POLICIES
2.1 The application site is within an area of 'Proposed Residential' under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Ramsey Local Plan) (No. 2) Order 1998, hereafter referred to as the Ramsey Local Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area.
2.2 Due to the zoning of the site and the proposed works the following policies are relevant in the determination of the application:-
2.3 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: (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; (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.
2.4 Paragraph 8.12.1 advises that there will be a general presumption in favour of extensions to residential properties where this would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general.
2.5 Business Policy 13: Permission will generally be given for the use of private residential properties as tourist accommodation providing that it can be demonstrated that such use would not compromise the amenities of neighbouring residents.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/00921/B
Page 2 of 4
3.1 PA14/01018/B - Erection of single storey extension. APPROVED
4.0 PROPOSAL
4.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a two storey extension to side elevation to provide living and tourist accommodation. The extension to the side elevation would have a pitched, gable end roof design, with a width of 4.5 metres, a depth of 10 metres, a ridge height of 6.45 metres and height to eaves of 3.5 metres.
4.2 The accommodation consists of a lounge and Kitchenette/dining area on the ground floor and a double guest room and ensuite on the first floor. A separate access (front door) is proposed however the proposal is linked by a through door between the kitchenette/dining area and the family room.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 DOI Highway Services do not oppose (received on 19.08.2015).
5.2 Ramsey Commissioners have no objection (received on 24.08.2015).
5.3 Department of Economic Development supports the above planning application. (received 27.08.2015).
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The principal issues relate to the visual impact upon the street scene and potential impact upon neighbouring properties, particularly through overbearing impact and/or overlooking and increase in activity from tourist accommodation.
6.2 In relation to the visual appearance of the proposal, it would not be overly apparent from Royal Park, given the extension is to the side elevation, but also given the position of the extension which is set back approximately 6 metres from the front elevation. The proposal may be apparent from Rheast Mooar Lane to the west of the site. However, given the extension's size, height and position, the proposal would not have a significant impact upon the visual amenities of this street scene.
6.3 In relation to the potential impacts upon neighbouring amenities, the proposed extension would be approximately 11 metres from the side elevation of Nr 27 Rheast Mooar Lane. This elevation has a number of windows which face towards the application site. The boundary treatment shared with the two properties consists of a mature hedgerow, approximately 1.5 metres in height (measured from application site), although it is planted above a raised bedding area. A large bush and semi-mature trees can also be found. The larger of the bushes would partly be in line with the proposed extension. The majority of the boundary hedgerows are within the ownership of Nr 27, therefore the applicant has no control over them. The only windows proposed in the side elevation are at ground level which is not considered to adversely affect the amenities of the neighbouring property.
6.4 There is a general presumption in favour of the use of domestic premises as tourist accommodation on the Island although there can be instances where the slight change in character from the different type of occupation can result in adverse impacts. In fact, there have only been a handful of similar types of application which have been refused: applications for the use of flats have sometimes been found to have a potentially damaging effect of the amenities of others through the comings and goings of tourists compared with permanent residents (PA 04/00194/C in Port Erin).
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/00921/B
Page 3 of 4
In the case of semi-detached properties, there has only been one refusal, in the case of a property in Ard Reayrt (PA 96/01285/C). In that instance the inspector was concerned that the nature of the dwelling could result in there being more people in it at any one time than would be the case if the dwelling were occupied as a private residence and the comings and goings and potential for disturbance to neighbours would be greater. He also identified that the higher turnover of occupants would be less likely to result in the occupants getting to know the neighbours, undermining the community spirit of the area. This is reflected also in a more recent application for 14/01089/C for a unit in the Empress apartments, Douglas, which was refused for reasons related to the absence of a demonstration that the different use would not result in an adverse impact on other occupants of the building.
6.5 This application is for the use of proposed extension as both ancillary living accommodation and tourist accommodation, it is clear from the above that additional activity from tourist accommodation has the potential for disturbance to neighbours. However, in this instance as this is effectively tourist accommodation in someone's home it is considered that as the owners are likely to be in place most of the time this gives an element of management and as such the proposed use would not compromise the amenities of neighbouring residents.
6.6 Conditions are proposed to ensure that the proposed use remains ancillary to main dwelling house and is not occupied long term, as a separate residential unit in this location is not considered acceptable and the application has been considered on the basis of the information set out in the planning application which is for ancillary residential and tourist accommodation.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 Overall, it is considered the proposal would comply with the relevant policies of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan therefore it is recommended that the application be approved.
8.0 PARTY 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.
Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Fisheries are part of the same Department as is the planning authority and as such should not be afforded interested person status under the Order.
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 word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 28.09.2015
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/00921/B
Page 4 of 4
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
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.
C 2. The extension hereby approved shall not be used or occupied other than for the purposes incidental to the residential use of the dwelling or short-let holiday accommodation and shall not be used as a separate dwelling. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied by the same person(s) for a single period or cumulative periods exceeding 28 days in any calendar year.
Reason: To ensure proper control of the development and to avoid any future undesirable fragmentation of the curtilage and to ensure that the extension is only used and occupied as short let holiday accommodation and to prevent the creation of an unjustified separate dwelling.
This approval relates to drawings 14 1057 1, 2 Rev A and 3 all date stamped as received on 12 August 2015.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to the Head of Development Management.
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 05.10.2015 Determining officer
Signed :...J CHANCE...
Jennifer Chance
Head of Development Management
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive records.
The signature reflects the Officer who endorsed the Officer Recommendation.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal