Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00459/B
Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00459/B Applicant : Mr Shane Moran Proposal : Alterations, erection of a rear extension and erection of a detached garage with living accommodation above Site Address : 2 Primrose Terrace Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5AP
Photo Taken : 02.07.2021 Site Visit : 02.07.2021 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 23.08.2021
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.
C 2. The garage with first floor accommodation hereby approved may be used only as such ancillary to the occupation of the main house at 2 Primrose Terrace, Port St. Mary, and may not be used separately or let or sold off separately.
Reason: The provisions for access and vehicular parking and manoeuvring are not appropriate for more than one dwelling unit on this site.
This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings received on 4th May 2021, and Amended drawings and email received 13th August 2021.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are mentioned in Article 6(4):
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00459/B
Page 2 of 9
Creg dy Shee, The Lhargan, Port St Mary, Mount Pleasant, The Lhargan, Port St Mary, Port Verk, The Lhargan, Port St Mary,
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
8 Lhargan, Port St. Mary, as they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy.
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS 3 REPRESENTATIONS (OBJECTIONS) HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE RECOMMENDED TO BE AFFORDED INTERESTED PERSON STATUS AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing terraced property which sits facing towards Port St. Mary harbour and bay and backs onto the Lhargan. The property is a relatively traditional Manx cottage from the front with an offset front door beside a triple sectioned sliding sash front window with two equally sized windows above. The traditional character is somewhat diminished by the plastic framed casement windows throughout and the large, flat roofed dormer on the front pitch, which is similar (but larger) than that on the front of the adjacent properties, number 1 and bay Crest.
1.2 The rear garden abuts the Lhargan with a stepped rear garden/yard area back down to the rear of the property which currently has a lean-to single storey annex and flat roofed extension adjacent to the house with its apex of the lean-to on the boundary with number 1. There is a cluster of trees and shrubs at the rear of the dwelling which screens views to the ground floor section of the rear elevation.
1.3 The property has access to a parking space in front of the property.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal seeks planning approval for alterations, erection of a rear extension and erection of a detached garage with living accommodation above.
2.2 The first element of the works would involve the erection of a single storey extension that would project from the rear of the existing dining by 4.3m, be 3.1m wide and 3.1m high to the top of the flat roof (matching the height of the existing flat roof rear extension which serves as the dining). This extension would level up with the rear elevation of the existing store within the lean-to extension. The existing lean-to roof would be removed, with a flat roof built over this extension to the same roof level as the new flat roof extension. This extension would be rendered and painted to match the existing building.
2.3 The second element of the works would involve the erection of a detached garage with a studio office above (with a WC). The garage would be 6.9m long, 5.6m wide and 5.6m high (3m to the eaves). A 4.7m x 2.1m roller shutter door would be installed on the front elevation, while a pedestrian access door and window 1m x 1.1m would be installed on the rear elevation. A new stair would be erected at the rear to provide access to the rear garden from the garage. The roof of this
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00459/B
Page 3 of 9
extension would be finished in natural grey slates to match the roof finish of the abutting garage, while its front and side elevation would be finished in painted render. The rear elevation would be finished in Cedral fibre cement cladding with strips on the edges finished in natural stone. A timber lattice with access door would form the rear elevation of the lower ground floor level to enable the use of the space under the garage as garden storage.
2.4 The proposed garage would be 800mm taller than the abutting garage, but would maintain the same pitch angle as this garage.
2.5 The final element of the works would involve creating a hardstanding area in front of the garage to link the garage to the existing highway at the rear.
2.6 The applicants had initially proposed an arch roofed two storey building with garage on the ground floor, with large areas of glazing on the first floor rear elevation. However, following on a site meeting with both the applicant and his agent, the plans were amended to have a pitch roof (although the pitch angle was at variance with that of the abutting garage. Further amendments have now been carried out following comments from one of the objectors regarding the relationship of the proposed garage with the abutting garage. The scheme now proposes a garage with pitch angle similar to the abutting garage, although with a different height. The parking area that was initially proposed to be in front of the garage has also been removed.
2.7 The new plans include a side elevation drawing showing the relationship between the new garage and existing garage. The agent has also sent in a written response to state that the hardstanding area in front of the proposed garage is not a parking area.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South as Predominantly Residential and within a proposed Conservation Area. As such, the provisions of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan are applicable as follows:
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."
3.3 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.
3.4 Development within a Conservation Area is required to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area in accordance with EP35 and PPS 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man although it is noted that the CA is not yet adopted. It is useful to consider a recent appeal decision for a development in the village where the inspector comments as follows on the status of the CA:
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00459/B
Page 4 of 9
18/00790/B for the replacement of a door in 2, Victoria Road:
"13. Clearly, through the APS, it has been considered desirable to designate a large part of Port St Mary as a conservation area. The CA is clear about the reasoning behind this decision. Although it has not been so designated at this stage and progress has been slow, it is stated by PBCD that the designation will be completed albeit no date has been given at present.
3.5 The Department has recently updated its Residential Design Guidance which provides advice on the design of new residential development including extensions, as well as assessing the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent dwellings will also be vital in the assessment of the application. The following excerpts are considered relevant:
including materials, design and detailing (such as window materials and proportions);
including the building line, roof line, orientation, and the slope of the site;
including the presence of original dormers and chimneys; and
consideration of loss of private amenity, external space, and impact on issues such as bin storage. For example, an extension should not lead to a situation where there is no amenity or where bins are left on roads/lanes as a result.
4.1.6 All extensions and alterations, particularly those incorporating modern design approaches, should be considered holistically with the original/main building and its setting in the landscape/townscape to avoid an awkward jarring of materials and forms. However, well-judged modern designs using contemporary and sustainable materials will be welcomed, as the Department does not wish to restrict creative designs where they can be integrated successfully into their context. Such approaches, where well designed, can serve to both improve the sustainability of buildings and significantly improve the appearance of buildings to the general benefit of the streetscene.
7.2.1 There are some common issues in relation to impact on neighbouring properties which may apply to both new dwellings and extensions to dwellings, and these are: o potential loss of light/overshadowing; o potential overbearing impact upon outlook; and o potential overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy."
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The property has been the subject of two previous planning applications which are considered to be materially relevant to the current application.
4.2 PA 07/01087/B for alterations and erection of a single storey extension to rear elevation. This was approved in July 2007 and involved the erection of the flat roofed extension to which the current extension would be attached.
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00459/B
Page 5 of 9
4.3 PA 07/01088/B for formation of a platform parking area with storage below and new vehicular access onto highway. This was approved in July 2007 but the approval was not implemented. The proposed garage would be erected in place of the platform for which approval has now lapsed.
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 raise no objection to the proposal subject to the condition for all vehicular access arrangements to accord to drawing named "Proposed Ground Floor and First Floor Plans 2" in a letter dated 29 July 2021.
5.2 Port St Mary Commissioners indicated concerns regarding overlooking of neighbouring gardens from the proposed living accommodation above the garage, and loss of light issues in a letter dated 3 June 2021.
5.2.1 Having received amended plans form the applicants, they have now stated that given previous concerns regarding potential overlooking for neighbouring properties, they would like any decisions to be postponed until they can physically meet to discuss and comment on the amendments, which would be after the 25th August (15 July 2021).
5.3 The Owners/occupiers of Creg dy Shee, The Lhargan, Port St Mary who had initially written in to object to the application on 7 June 2021, have made the following comments on the application (27 July 2021): 1. The absence of a scaled Lhargan street scene elevation including the adjacent garage and other neighbouring properties gives no indication of the visual impact of the proposal.
The drawing seems to show a building which is considerably higher due to a steeper roof than the existing neighbouring garage/accommodation which would result in a visual stepping of roofline heights with different pitches. This will affect the visual impact of the development on the residents of Lhargan.
The position of the car parking within the development is now also unclear.
Although the amended plan does not show a car parked on the 'triangle' which it did on the original plan, is this still to be classified as an off-road parking space, and if not will it be acceptable for the space to be used for parking?
As a new building and with the application for living accommodation, how does this comply with the requirement for two off road car parks to be provided as per planning policy (Isle of Man Strategic Plan - Appendix 7.6)?
5.4 The Owners/occupiers of Mount Pleasant, The Lhargan, Port St Mary, have stated that they have no concerns about the element of the proposed works that relate to the main house but object to the proposed garage element on the following grounds (7 June 2021): 1. the detached new building would by virtue of its height and large fenestrations be out of keeping in the street scene; 2. the roof design of the proposal is not in keeping with the existing traditional style roofs within the locality; 3. Incomplete application: the plans for the proposed house extension provide actual measurements whereas the plans for the new build garage with living accommodation above does not, it just provides a diagram. Similarly, the plans show suggested finish and materials for the external walls of the new build and large windows but no mention of the proposed finish for the roof.
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/00459/B
Page 6 of 9
5.4.1 Following review of amended plans, Owners/occupiers of Mount Pleasant, The Lhargan, Port St Mary, have made the following comments in a letter dated 31 July 2021: 1. It would have been useful to have a drawing of the front of building where it faces onto the Lhargan so that a comparison could be made against the garage on the plot next to it, to give an idea of perspective and how it fits into the street scene. 2. There is therefore still a concern about lack of extra parking spaces.
5.5 The Owners/occupiers of 8 Lhargan, Port St. Mary, have made the following comments regarding the application in a letter dated 11 June 2021: 1. We are concerned with congested parking in the immediate area. Parking is already problematic, constantly exacerbated by the properties with the frontage opposite to the Lhargan. 2. The proposed design is not in the vernacular.
5.6 The Owners/occupiers of Port Verk, The Lhargan, Port St Mary, have made the following comments which relate specifically to the erection of a detached garage with living accommodation above in a letter dated 27 June 2021: 1. The garage is a far larger building than those properties on the existing street scene. My property was built in 2016 and on the Lhargan side it is considerably smaller in appearance, thus fitting in with other properties in the area. This new proposal feels like a significant overdevelopment. The properties on Primrose terrace were all built with small narrow gardens and not intended to have another property within the grounds.
Roof design: The proposed new development lies within the Port St Mary proposed Conservation Area. The roof is definitely not in keeping with the local area, there are no details of what material the roof is likely to be but from the application it looks unlikely to be Manx slate as per the other properties in the area.
Obstruction of sunlight - the new garage is significant in size and will have an impact on the properties to the north of it. Particularly 1 Primrose Terrace, The Old Police Station, and my property Port Verk. At present we all enjoy sunshine into the late afternoon in our gardens and my calculations would mean this development would impact us for several months of the year.
Overlooking the properties opposite on The Lhargan - The two properties immediately opposite the proposed development would have their privacy seriously impacted.
Incomplete application - As per the above we do not know the roof materials and there seems to be a number of other questions about this development that remain unanswered.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 In considering such extensions, it important to have specific regard to impact on the appearance of both the site itself and the street scene, the potential impacts on neighbours and their amenity, and the impact of parking and Highway safety.
6.2 Visual Impact 6.2.1 The works will include the removal of the lean-to roof over the existing utility room and store at the rear elevation of the dwelling and the installation of a flat roof over to connect with the new flat roof extension at the rear will fill up the open section directly behind the dining of the rear yard. This will also create a uniform flat roofed area over the single storey element on the rear of the building; works which would not be publicly viewable or impact negatively on the appearance of the rear of the main building. It is also considered that the rear alterations and extension would tidy the appearance of the rear elevations and create improved uniformity in the appearance when viewed from the rear, which would be a significant enhancement on the existing. These works would be completely confined within the boundary walls and pitched roofed extension on the rear of 1 Primrose Terrace, and would be in keeping with the flat roofed extension at the rear of the dwelling.
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/00459/B
Page 7 of 9
6.2.2 With regard to the possible impacts on the streetscene, it is primarily the frontage of the dwelling that is visible from a public thoroughfare and therefore of more importance from this perspective. Considering all the works on the main dwelling would be at the rear, it is not considered that the impacts would be significant as the works will be largely hidden behind walling, roof levels, and existing landscaping, and will have no significant impact on the character of the streetscene. It is, therefore, considered that this element of the works will comply with General Policy 2 and the Residential Design Guidance.
6.2.3 In considering the impact of the proposed garage 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.
6.2.4 With regard to impacts of the proposed garage 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 Lhargan which abuts the rear boundary. However, there are a number of properties along this part of the Lhargan which have had similar works carried out to the rear (with garages filling up the entire rear boundary with the lane such as the Police Station House, Bay Crest (directly south), Bayr Niar, and Creggan Beg, 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; by retaining the dominant slate roof finish, pitch roof and render finish. As well, its roof pitch would be similar to that of the abutting garage, although its roof would be set higher than the neighbouring garage, and as such would not be out of character given that the existing garages along this side of the lane are of varying sizes, height, and roof; resulting in a staggered roof plane. As such, there will be no adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area or the Proposed Conservation Area.
6.3 Impact on neighbouring amenity 6.3.1 In terms of impacts of the rear extension on neighbouring dwellings, it is considered that the design of the scheme would not result in any impacts on the neighbouring dwelling in terms of overlooking, overbearing impacts or loss of light. In fact, the removal of the lean to which rises towards No. 1 Primrose Terrace and its replacement with a flat roof would reduce any loss of light resulting from the erection of the lean to on this neighbour. It is also noted that the works would be confined within the boundary wall with Bay Crest (3 Primrose Terrace) and the lean to extension abutting No. 1 Primrose Terrace and as such there would be no impact on these neighbours in this instance.
6.3.2 With regard to the proposed garage with accommodation in roof, the key concern with this element of the scheme had been the possible overlooking from the large areas of glazing initially proposed. However, this scheme has been significantly altered with the only key fenestrations being the proposed rooflights on the roof of the garage. From observing the height variations between the eaves of the garage and position of the nearby gardens which are above 6m and sloping away from the garage, it is not considered that any overlooking would result here. As well, the pitch which leans away from the garden would ensure no overlooking occurs here. It is also considered that there would be no overbearing impacts on any of the neighbours given the level of development on this part of the rear garden of the neighbours.
6.3.3 In considering possible impacts on the properties situated on the western side of the Lhargan, it is considered that it is these properties that hold the advantage over the application property in this case given their elevated positions comparative to the application site. Moreover, the inclined angle of the rooflights on this roof plane would not introduce views to such a level as to warrant refusal of the scheme. Based on the foregoing, it is not accepted that the proposal will have an adverse impact on the living conditions of those in the adjacent property situated west of the Lhargan.
==== PAGE 8 ====
21/00459/B
Page 8 of 9
6.3.4 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 is therefore considered to be acceptable.
6.4 Parking and Highway Safety 6.4.1 In considering the highway safety impacts of the scheme, it is noted that the proposed garage door would be wide enough for vehicles to manoeuvre in and out without creating undue impacts on the flow of traffic along the Lhargan. 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.
6.4.2 Whilst comments regarding the garage as a new building with the application for living accommodation, and parking issues are noted, the space above the garage would be ancillary to the main dwelling and as such is not considered as an independent unit. Moreover, a condition has be imposed to ensure it remain ancillary to the main dwelling. It is also vital to note that the property currently has access to only one parking space with the application proposing to increase available parking through the addition of a parking space and spaces for the parking of bicycles within the garage; which is a significant improvement over the current situation. Moreover, the property is within a public transport corridor where the parking standards can be relaxed; even though the scheme meets the required standards stipulated in Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan as duly noted in the DOI Highways comments dated 29 July 2021.
6.4.3 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in the context of both GP 2 (h and i) and Appendix A.7.6 of the Strategic Plan, and as such, is acceptable.
6.5 Other Matters 6.5.1 The Port St. Mary Commissioners had asked in their second representation on the application that determination of the application be deffered until after their meeting on the 25th of August due to previous concerns regarding potential overlooking for neighbouring properties. However, given that the revised scheme has adressed concerns related to overlooking for all elements of the scheme, it is considered appropriate that the determination of the application is delayed on these grounds.
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 highway 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) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), 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 (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
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
==== PAGE 9 ====
21/00459/B
Page 9 of 9
o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : ...Permitted.. Committee Meeting Date:...06.09.2021
Signed :...M SHEN... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
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