**Document:** Planning Report and Recommendations **Application:** 09/00393/A — Approval in principle for the conversion of existing garage into a dwelling **Decision:** Refused **Decision Date:** 2009-05-18 **Parish:** Rushen **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/62686-rushen-garage-conversion-garage/documents/1374727 --- # Planning Report and Recommendations **Application No.:** 09/00393/A **Applicant:** Mr Jim Myson **Proposal:** Approval in principle for the conversion of existing garage into a dwelling **Site Address:** Garage Park Road Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5HH ### Considerations Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett **Photo Taken:** 16.04.2009 **Site Visit:** 16.04.2009 **Expected Decision Level:** Planning Committee ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consultee : Mr B J Boyle Notes: Comments received Consultee : Highways Division Notes: Defer Consultee : Port St Mary Commissioners Notes: - No objections (see below) ### Officer's Report THIS APPLICATION IS BEING REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR CONSIDERATION AS THE OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION IS FOR REFUSAL OF THE APPLICATION AND THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE PROPOSAL ### The Site The site represents the footprint of an existing building situated on the eastern side of Park Road . The building is a pitched roofed garage with dimensions 6 m (deep) by 5.4 m (wide) and an upper floor presently accessed from within the building. The building is presently painted a pink colour, like other lower garaging to the north and the south facing elevation of Maycroft, to the north of the lower garaging. The streetscene is generally characterised by garaging and workshops of varying heights and sizes, with the exceptions of Maycroft, The Studio (a dwelling unit) to the north of Maycroft and Beauval at the southern end of Park Road at its junction with the land which runs to Quine and Cubbon printers on the corner of the lane with High Street. The application garage is taller than most of the other garages in the street. There is an open space alongside the garage to the south which provides access to the rear of the garage which abuts the rear of 21, High Street. ## Planning Status The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Predominantly Shopping. In the draft Port St. Mary Area Plan the area is identified as Mixed Use Village which includes a mix of permitted uses - retail/offices/industry/residential/tourism. This plan was the subject of a public inquiry but not progressed to Tynwald for approval. ### Planning History Planning permission was granted for the change of use to private dwelling of something although the microfiche for this file is missing and the site of the application appears to extend to all of 21, High Street, the application site and the access alongside. Planning permission was granted for the erection of a garage to replace the existing to the rear of under PA 99/2236. This resulted in the building which presently stands on the site. The site relating to this application was simply the footprint of the building and was not associated with any other property. There were no conditions restricting the use of the building which contained storage space above the garaging. ### The Proposal Proposed is the principle of the conversion of the building to a residential unit. The applicant has clarified that the building could offer up to 37 square metres nett of floor area excluding the garage space and that it is anticipated that there would be a dormer on the front pitch and two on the rear pitch. The applicant indicates that the rear dormers would have pitched roofs and that on the front would be longer and have a flat roof although this could appear as a pair with a flat roof in between. The applicant's agent also explains that there are options for the disposal of foul sewage through either discharging to the foul sewer under number 21, High Street, to the existing public sewer in a neighbouring property to the south and to an existing private sewer in the public roadway to the north. Rainwater presently discharges from the front roof slope over the pavement and from the rear slope over the rear yard. It is suggested that if required, a rainwater harvesting system could be installed which could re-use rainwater in the proposed wc. The applicant's agent also clarifies that the garage has never been associated with another property and has been used by the owner to accommodate his classic cars. ### Representations Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division request a deferral pending further information regarding the use of the garage. Port St. Mary Commissioners submit two responses, one as the drainage authority and the other in respect to planning issues. The drainage response requires a condition that the development must be connected to the main sewer and that no surface water may be discharged to the main sewer and that there are no known surface water sewers in the area and no existing foul connection. The planning response refers to the fact that there is only one parking space provided on site and that is sufficient to serve a one bedroomed apartment only and as such a condition should be attached to require that the accommodation is used only as this. It should be noted that the amount of floorspace will dictate the occupancy of the property - if it provides only 37 square metres of floor area then the property will be restricted to permanent occupancy levels of only one person under the Housing (Flats) Regulations 1982. ### Assessment The property lies within an area designated for a mixture of uses, including residential and as such, there should be a presumption in favour of the use of the property as a dwelling, subject to the provisions of General Policy 2 (GP2) of the Strategic Plan and providing that the loss of the existing garaging is not in itself a reason for refusal. In this respect, when the application was permitted for the garage, it would not appear to have been associated with a particular dwelling, nor was any specific need adduced for the garage. As such, it would appear that there is no evidence to support an objection to the loss of the garaging. 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: a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space 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; e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; 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 adverse 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; I) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption." The proposal involves alterations to the building and the creation of a self contained living unit. As such, consideration should be given to both the visual impact of the proposed change of use and the new use itself. In respect of b and c, the building will be visually changed to include dormers in the front and rear and those in the front will be publicly visible. The building will thus change in appearance from being something whose appearance confirms to its function - a garage - to a building which clearly looks like a garage which has been converted to another use and whose appearance, due to the inclusion of the dormers, is a peculiar mixture of domestic and quasi industrial elements. The resultant building is unlikely to be visually in keeping with the remainder of the streetscene which is either small scale garaging/storage or buildings which are clearly residential in appearance and scale. In the absence of full elevational drawings to illustrate how the converted building would appear with a reduced size garage door and dormers, it is considered that the visual impact of the proposed conversion would result in a building which would be unattractive in itself and out of keeping with the streetscene. This is one difficulty in applying in principle for development which clearly involves alterations, without illustration of how these alterations would appear. The proposal is not considered to be in breach of a, d, e, f or g of GP2. Paragraph h requires the development to have satisfactory amenity standards in itself and in this respect the property has no external amenity space at all. Whilst there are no prescribed standards for this, it is considered that for a building to have absolutely no external space is unacceptable and the appearance and likelihood of there being some need for garaging in the area, there is no justification for setting aside this concern. A recent planning application for the conversion of a former church hall in Glen Maye was refused on appeal for similar reasons (PA 07/1455). Access to the garage is not to be substantially changed and there is no objection from the Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division in respect of an adverse impact on the local highway network. There is some information from the applicant regarding the disposal of foul and surface water although this would appear to rely upon utilising the property of others and there is no indication that such permission has been afforded. Whilst the provision for the disposal of surface water is not ideal, the proposed change of use will not significantly change the amount or nature of run off of surface water. It is not considered that paragraphs l, m and n are material in this case. In summary, whilst there would appear to be no material adverse impact from the loss of garaging which would result from the proposal, the resultant dwelling would have no external amenity space and the appearance of the converted garage - with dormers in the front pitch, would be out of keeping in the streetscene and there are no circumstances which would justify setting aside these concerns. ## **PARTY STATUS** The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status. **Recommendation** **Recommended Decision:** Refused **Date of Recommendation:** 06.05.2009 **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** ## **R 2.** The introduction of dormers to a building which has clearly been designed as a garage and where the building has no external space which may lend itself to appearing more as a dwelling within the streetscene, would result in a building which would be unattractive in itself and out of keeping with the streetscene in which it is situated, contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2 b and 2c of the Strategic Plan. ## **R 1.** The proposed dwelling would have no external amenity space which is considered contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2h. 6 May 2009 09/00393/A I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005 Decision Made : Committee Meeting Date : Signed : Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate YES/NO --- *Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).* *Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/62686-rushen-garage-conversion-garage/documents/1374727*