Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00171/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00171/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Rennie & Anne Alcock Proposal : Replacement of existing detached garage at rear with new enlarged garage Site Address : 2 The Promenade Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1BJ
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.05.2021 __
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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Overall it is concluded that the planning application accords with the provisions of General Policy 2 and Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to Drawing Nos 01 and 02, received on 23 February 2021, and 03 rev A received 30 March, 2021. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Flood Risk Management Division __
Officer’s Report
1.0 SITE
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00171/B Page 2 of 5
1.1 The application site is the curtilage of 2 The Promenade, Castletown, which is a three storey mid-terrace dwelling which is sited to the northern side of the highway. To the rear of the dwelling there is a small yard a single storey detached garage (providing one internal parking space) and a single storey lean-to store. The site also has access to an unallocated (unrestricted parking area) in front of the dwelling.
1.2 This dwelling which overlooks the Castletown Bay is finished with painted masonry render with its steeply pitched roof covered in grey slate tiles. At the rear of the property is a narrow alley which serves the detached garage and the rear parking and garages to the abutting dwellings. The site is quite visible from the abutting rear lane, as well as the surrounding rear lanes near the property, although these lanes are rarely used.
1.3 The adjoining property to the west is 3 The Promenade, this property has a detached garage with living accommodation above at the rear of the property which has access from the rear service lane.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for replacement of existing detached garage at rear with new enlarged garage.
2.2 The proposed works would involve the demolition of the existing store and single garage that abuts the rear lane and their replacement with a large garage that would run across the entire length of the north boundary of the site. The new garage would measure 5.9m x 6.3m and be 5.2m high (2.7m to eaves). There would be a window 1.2m x 1.1 and a pedestrian entrance door 900mm x 2.1m installed on the rear elevation (south), while the garage door on the north elevation would be 5m wide and 2.4m high. The external walls will be finished in painted smooth masonry render, while the roof would be covered with natural slate tiles (to match adjoining garage).
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The application site is within an area designated as 'Predominantly Residential' on the Area Plan for the South (Map 5) and the site is not within a Conservation Area. Also, the site is not considered to be within a flood risk zone as indicated on the Isle of Man Indicative Flood Maps. As such, the following policies are considered to be vital in the assessment of the application:
3.2 General Policy 2: "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 and (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; (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;
3.3 APPENDIX 7: PARKING STANDARDS Residential A.7.1 High levels of car ownership have led to an increase in the level of parking expected for new residential development, and outside of town centre locations these standards should not
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00171/B Page 3 of 5
be relaxed. New-built residential development should be provided with two parking spaces per dwelling, at least one of which should be within the curtilage of the dwelling and behind the front of the dwelling, although the amount and location of parking will vary in respect of development such as terracing, apartments, and sheltered housing. In the case of town centre and previously developed sites, the Department will consider reducing this requirement having regard to: (a) the location of the housing relative to public transport, employment, and public amenities; (b) the size of the dwelling; (c) any restriction on the nature of the occupancy (such as sheltered housing); and (d) the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Where new dwellings are created by the conversion of existing buildings, parking space should be formed by the clearance of outbuildings and low-grade annexes or "outlets" if it is reasonable and practicable so to do; however, in general, the need to find a use for redundant buildings which are in sound condition will outweigh the drawback of any shortfall in parking provision.
3.4 Section A.7.6 Parking Standards Residential Terraces 2 spaces per unit, if not within curtilage then located as close to units as possible without compromising residential amenity. Parking spaces should not be provided in front of the dwellings where this would result in a poor outlook for residents and would detract from the amenity of the area.
These standards may be relaxed where development: (d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, two of which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
4.2 PA 05/01009/B for alterations, demolition of existing garage and outbuildings and erection of a two storey extension to the rear elevation to provide double garage with games room above. This was approved by the Planning Committee in October 2005.
4.3 PA 14/01011/B for erection of a replacement garage with store room over. This was approved in October 2014, although the development was not implemented. The existing building still reflects that which was existing before the 2014 approval was granted.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that they 'Do not oppose' in the letter dated 19 March 2021. Having reviewed the amended plans, they continue not to oppose the scheme (23 April 2021).
5.2 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Flood Risk Management Division confirms that that there is 'No Flood Risk Management interest' in the letter dated 8 April 2021.
5.3 Castletown Commissioners although consulted on 20 April 2021, have not made any comments on this application at the time of drafting this report.
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00171/B Page 4 of 5
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this application are: i. the visual impact of the proposal on the existing building and streetscene, and ii. the impact of the development on the amenities of those in adjacent residential properties. iii. Impact on highway safety
6.2 Visual Impact 6.2.1 In terms of the impact of the proposed scheme on the existing building, it is considered that the design proposed would be appropriate to the main dwelling since the roof pitch angle, the slate roof tiles, as well as the external painted masonry finishing will be in keeping with the character of the main dwelling.
6.2.2 With regard to impacts on the street scene, it is noted that the works would be at the rear, albeit at a position where the development would be noticeable from the surrounding lanes and King Williams Road. However, there are a number of properties along The Promenade which have had similar works carried out to the rear (with garages filling up the entire rear boundary with the lane such as Nos. 3, 6, and 7), and as such the proposed scheme would not be out of place. Besides, the proposed garage would be in keeping with the street scene as it would respect the character and appearance of the property and area in general.
6.2.3 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the proposed garage would be in keeping with the existing dwellinghouse and the vicinity of the dwelling and would not unacceptably harm the characteristics of the existing building or the character of its surroundings, thus complying with GP 2 (b & c).
6.3 Impact on neighbouring residential amenity 6.3.1 The proposed enlarged garage is not expected to generate any impacts significantly beyond that of the existing even though it would be set about 2m higher than the existing garage and store given that it would still be set lower than the abutting garage and would be a single storey development, unlike a number of the garages to the rear of the buildings on The Promenade that have accommodation or storage at the first floor. As well, the proposal would not result in undue overlooking or loss of privacy to the neighbouring properties given that there are no windows or rooflights at first floor level. Moreover, the garage would not project any further towards the main dwelling than the existing garage at 3 The Promenade or the outbuildings at the rear of 1 The Promenade, and its height would ensure it does not result in overbearing impacts on any of the neighbouring properties. The presence of the tree on the boundary with 1 The Promenade would also ensure that any loss of light to the rear yard of this property would be negligible.
6.3.2 Overall, it is considered that the proposed garage would not significantly alter the existing situation, as it would not appear unduly overbearing or have an adverse impact upon the amenity of the abutting properties to a level that would warrant refusal of the scheme and and is therefore considered to be acceptable.
6.4 Impact on Highway Safety 6.4.1 In considering the highway safety impacts of the scheme, it is noted that although the rear lane is narrow, the proposed garage door would be wide enough for vehicles to manoeuvre in and out. It is also considered that the proposal would provide sufficient amenity in itself and would not have an adverse impact upon highway safety given its proposed width and length. As the garage would provide for a larger parking space that would provide enhanced access for users, without resulting in a reduction of the parking provisions for the main dwelling, the works are considered to be an improvement on the existing in highway safety terms.
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00171/B Page 5 of 5
6.4.2 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in the context of both GP 2 (b, c, g and i) and Appendix A.7.6 of the Strategic Plan, and as such, is acceptable.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall, it is not considered that the proposal will not result in unacceptable impacts on the amenities of the neighbours, the visual appearance of the property and the streetscene, as well as high way safety and as such the application is recommended for approval.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 14.05.2021
Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett
Principal Planner
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 services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal