**Document:** Officer Planning Report **Application:** 09/00845/B — Erection of a detached garage with ancillary living accommodation above **Decision:** Refused **Decision Date:** 2009-08-17 **Parish:** Patrick **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/63257-patrick-fo-glion-glen-rushen-road-garage/documents/1379042 --- # Officer Planning Report **Application No.:** ** 09/00845/B ** **Applicant:** ** Mr Stuart Blackley ** **Proposal:** ** Erection of a detached garage with ancillary living accommodation above ** **Site Address:** ** Fo-Glion, Glen Rushen Road, Glen Maye, Isle Of Man, IMS 3BA ### Considerations **Case Officer:** Mr Steve Stanley ** **Photo Taken:** ** - ** **Site Visit:** ** - ** **Expected Decision Level:** ** Senior Planning Officer ### Written Representations ### Consultations **Consultee:** Highways Division **Notes:** - Do not oppose. **Consultee:** Patrick Commissioners **Notes:** - No objection, see comment. ### Officer's Report #### The Site The application site represents the curtilage of the detached property Fo-Glion, Glen Rushen Road, Glen Maye. The dwelling is situated on the south west side of the road. #### Planning Status The application site is located within an area identified as being High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance by the 1982 Development Order. Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan, the following policies are considered relevant in the assessment of this application: **General Policy 3, which states:** "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: - (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); - (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); - (c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the 13 August 2009 09/00845/B Page 1 of 4 landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; - (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); - (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; - (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; - (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and - (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage." Environmental Policy 1, which states: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative." Environmental Policy 2, which states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: - (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or - (b) the location for the development is essential." ## Planning History 08/01351/B sought approval for the installation of roof dormers and a balcony to the rear elevation of the existing property. This application was approved however as yet the development has not taken place. The dormers would have projecting gables with the larger of the two having an attached balcony. An additional bedroom would be created in part of the roof space of the dwelling resulting in four bedrooms. ### Representations The Department of Transport Highways Division does not object to this proposal. Patrick Parish Commissioners do not object to the principle of the erection of a garage however concern is expressed in relation to impact of the building which would appear as a new detached dwelling. The applicants have submitted a letter of support for their application stating that as they would have to build the garage, it is considered that it would be useful to have additional accommodation above. It is stated that the dwelling currently has three bedrooms and as such there is no space for guests. ### The Proposal This application seeks approval for the erection of a detached double garage with living accommodation above which is proposed to be ancillary to the existing dwelling. The building would have a modern appearance. ### Assessment The main issues to be considered in the assessment of this application are whether the principle of a detached garage with accommodation at first floor level is acceptable in this location when assessed against relevant planning policies. General Policy 3 sets out the exceptions to the presumption against development outside of areas designated for development. Whilst it is generally accepted that a dwelling may be served by a subordinate garage (as permissible by that set out by the Permitted Development Order 2005), there is no provision for garage which have accommodation above as the resulting impact is so similar to a new dwelling in the countryside to which there is a very strong policy objection (see Environmental Policy 1 above). It is judged that on this basis, the proposed development does not represent one of the exceptions to the presumption against development in the countryside. Furthermore, Environmental Policy 2 sets out the circumstances in which development may be permitted in areas of High Landscape Value, advising that development would have to either not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or the location for the development must be essential. It is judged that the proposed development fails on both counts. The building would be detrimental to the character of the surrounding area which is to be protected for its own sake and the development is not essential. Planning Application 08/01351/B successfully sought approval to extend the property to create a total of 4 bedrooms. Clearly there is potential to provide the requisite number of bedrooms required by the applicant. Whilst the reasoning for the development set out by the applicant is understood, this is not sufficient to overcome the policy objections to the proposed building. Notwithstanding the objections to the principle of the development, the design of the garage with accommodation above is considered to be inappropriate to the rural location and as such would appear visually incongruous within the surrounding landscape. RECOMMENDATION Refuse. ## PARTY STATUS It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded Interested Party Status: The Department of Transport Highways Division Patrick Parish Commissioners --- **Recommendation** **Recommended Decision:** Refused **Date of Recommendation:** 13.08.2009 --- **Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal** **C : Conditions for approval** **N : Notes attached to conditions** 13 August 2009 09/00845/B ## R : Reasons for refusal ### 0 : Notes attached to refusals ### R 1. The proposed detached garage with first floor living accommodation above would, by reason of its size, siting and design create the impression that an additional dwelling has been constructed in this rural location recognised as being of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance, contrary to established policies which seek to protect the character of the countryside for its own sake. ### R 2. Notwithstanding the policy objection to the principle of the proposed development, the design of the garage with accommodation above is considered to be inappropriate to the rural location and as such would appear visually incongruous within the surrounding landscape. I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular No 10/09, Delegation of Functions (Development Procedure), GC No 11/09 (Advertisements) and GC No 12/09 (Registered Buildings) all to the Senior Planning Officer Decision Made : Refused Date : Signed : Senior Planning Officer --- *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/63257-patrick-fo-glion-glen-rushen-road-garage/documents/1379042*