**Document:** Officer Report and Committee Minutes **Application:** 06/01930/B — Erection of two detached dwellings and associated parking and landscaping **Decision:** Refused **Decision Date:** 2007-03-20 **Parish:** Arbory **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/81975-arbory-level-garage-dwelling/documents/1484463 --- # Officer Report and Committee Minutes ## Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee, held on 8th March 2007, at 10.00am, in the Ground Floor Meeting Room of Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas **Present:** Mrs C Christian MLC, Chairman to the Planning Committee Mr E Convery, Member Mr A Crowe, Member *Mr D Evans, Member Mr J Skinner, Member Mr J Slater, Member **In Attendance:** Mr I McCauley, Director of Planning and Building Control * Mr B Sinden, Senior Development Control Officer * Mr Ian Brooks, Development Control Officer * Mrs F Mullen, Development Control Officer Mr C Balmer, Development Control Officer Miss E J Callow, Secretary to the Planning Committee * Laura Mason, Acting Network Planning Officer, Department of Transport Highways (DOTH). *Part of the meeting only ### 1. Introduction by the Chairman The Chairman welcomed members of the public in attendance to view the proceedings. ### 2. Apologies for absence Mr Evans had sent apologies that he would be late in attending the meeting. He joined the meeting at item 8. ### 3. Consider the minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee held February 16th 2007 The Committee agreed the minutes and the Chairman signed them off as a true record. ### 4. Any matters arising Mrs Christian confirmed that Mr Crowe, as a result of his appointment as an MLC, has formally tendered his resignation to act as a member of the Planning Committee. However, in accordance with Article 3(8) of the Town and Country (Development Procedure) Order 2005, he has agreed to continue as a member until his successor is appointed. ### 5. To note decisions on those applications determined by the Director of Planning and Building Control under the authority delegated to him by the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, for the period 8th to the 28th February 2007 The Committee noted the same. ### Consultations [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] drainage works must conform to the requirements of the Department of Transport's "Manx Sewers for Adoption" and all necessary inspections / surveys (including CCTV) are to be carried out at the developer's expense. It is also a legal requirement under the Sewerage Act 1999 that the Department (as the drainage Authority) be advised, in advance, of the date of the connection of each dwelling to the public sewer. Note: Communication Fee will be payable to the Department of Transport in respect of this drainage connection. Note: The applicant is required to contact the Drainage Division prior to work commencing on site to discuss this proposed connection. There must be no discharge of surface water (directly or indirectly) from this proposed development to any foul drainage system(s) so as to comply with the requirements of the Department of Transport Drainage Division. The application states that the surface water from the proposed development is to be discharged to the "existing drainage". If this "existing drainage" discharges (directly or indirectly) to the foul sewerage system then it should be noted that an alternative means of surface water disposal must be provided. In the event that this application is approved I should be grateful if these comments could be incorporated in the approval notice. ### Private representations ### Planning ## Officer's Report #### The Site The site represents the curtilage of the former Level Garage which sits at the junction of the A7 Ballagawne Road and the B33 Croit-e-Caley Road. To the west there is a hedge and ditch and to the south is a hebe hedge and ditch which runs from the northern side of the A7. [Table omitted in markdown export] ## Planning Status The site is identified on the Arbory and East Rushen Local Plan as Retail, reflecting the previous use of the site as a commercial garage. ## Planning History Previously, planning permission was granted for the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes - PA 04/0146. No numbers were cited and no specific conditions attached to that approval, other than a note requiring that 8m must be maintained between the development and the nearby stream and another advising that there are no known surface water sewers in the area and that surface water may not be discharged to the main foul sewer. Subsequent to this, a planning application was submitted for the erection of 7 dwellings - PA 04/2120. This was refused for various reasons relating to over-development, the design of the dwellings, the presentation of the development to the main road and the amount of amenity space. A further application was submitted for 6 dwellings (PA 05/1209): this was refused on appeal for reasons relating to the inadequate provision for car parking and traffic circulation in a manner which would create unneighbourliness for the occupants of the proposed new dwellings. PA 05/92137 proposed three dwellings and was refused on appeal for reasons relating to the perception of over-development of the site and the appearance of the rear of the properties from Ballagawne Road. The Inspector commented that whilst the density of three dwellings was not unreasonable, the size and bulk of the proposed dwellings would result in a cramped environment and the maintenance of the wildlife corridor and the visibility splay would be compromised. ## The Proposal Now proposed is the erection of two dwellings on the site. They both front onto the A7 with pedestrian access thereto and therefrom and with vehicular access from the rear via a long drive which exits onto the B33. The dwellings are relatively close together and despite advising the application to vary the designs of the properties, they are both identical. Both are traditionally designed generally in accordance with Planning Circular 3/91 with a two storey addition on the left hand side of the front elevation. Both properties are five bedroomed properties with an integral garage whose door is on the rear elevation, thus not interfering with the principal elevation facing the main road. There are no public road improvements proposed as part of this application as there was in the previous proposal, due I suspect to the reduced size of the scheme. As such there is no requirement for so large a splay to the north west from the new access onto the B33 which previously cut across the side garden of the house proposed closest to this entrance/exit. Drainage will be provided via connections to the main drain in the B33. Surface water will be channelled to a new connection to the culverted water course. A section of the already culverted watercourse is to be re laid with a greater diameter to improve the existing flow through the site. The new connection will be downhill of this and will control the disposal of the surface water from the site to the water course. The wildlife corridors which focus on the two ditches/streams to the south and west of the site will be fenced off to leave the ditch and associated vegetation to be managed naturally as it is at present rather than being managed as part of the gardens of the proposed residential properties. ## Assessment There are objections from the occupants of two neighbouring properties still maintain that the development is over-intensive and that the building line of 1.4 of the highway is unacceptable and is far further forward towards the roadway than was the previous garage. There is also a suggestion that the A7 will be reduced as a result. There is to be a footpath to be built around the corner of the B33 as it joins the A7 and this is mostly to be built on the land which lies outwith the extent of the former garage but partially on land defined as the site. Part of the footpath is to be built on the site so there is to be some public gain rather than including part of what looks like public highway into the garden area. The Pump Street houses are very close to the road at their eastern end and Homefield is within 2m of the highway. Similarly Level Cottages are all very close to the A7 (1m - 1.5m). There are concerns about the principle of development of this site, suggesting that there is a policy presumption against new development outside areas designated for residential use and particularly on the southern side of the road. However, this ignores the fact that there was until relatively recently development on this site. Also none of the previous decisions cite in their reasons for refusal the principle of development of the site for residential purposes and the fact that approval in principle was granted in 2004 for this very purpose. The previous garage was not attractive and an appropriate form of residential development could be a vast improvement visually, to the appearance of this part of Colby. The objections also include reference to the pedestrian accesses on the front of the plots, suggesting that this is unacceptable as it may lead to people parking on the A7 outside the plot. This is most unlikely as the pedestrian access is more or less on the junction. The only way of designing the dwellings to have an acceptable frontage onto the A7 is to include a front door which will be used or they will always look contrived - as was criticised in the previous applications. Criticism is made of the use of render rather than stone, despite most properties in the vicinity being finished in render including many more modern properties and that the proposed roof lights may result in overlooking of existing adjacent property. Rooflights tend to allow the viewer to look up not down and as such it is unlikely that the rooflights will result in overlooking sufficient to warrant refusal of the application. Finally, concern is expressed regarding the precedent of further development which approval of this application would establish. I am not aware of any other garage sites in the vicinity so cannot accept that approval would establish a precedent for further development. The occupant of Wattle suggests that previous correspondence submitted in respect of the earlier applications should be made available in the case of this application but go on to reiterate much of what was previously cause for objection in the previous applications. It is not appropriate to copy in correspondence sent in response to another application as the substance of the applications are not the same: for example this objector previously objected at great length to the road "improvements" which are not proposed in this case and the numbers of the dwellings are clearly different. A resident of Port Soderick suggests that this development does not represent best use of the site and suggests re-orientation of the properties north and south of the site. The applicant has provided a further drawing, reference K098/P/10-02 Rev A which illustrates the relationship between site ownership and the scheme. Land ownership is not normally a planning matter. If the applicant does not own the land, he cannot normally undertake the development. In this case the applicant is giving over land to form the realigned highway and in return is utilising a much smaller area at the northern edge of the garden of the westernmost plot. The owners of Watlee dispute this as does the owner of Oldbrook to the south of the site who suggests that the culvert running down the Croit-e-Caley Road is contained entirely within the highway. A note should be attached to any approval, advising that the planning permission does not authorise the applicant to undertaken any works on land not within his ownership or control. ### Party Status Isle of Man Water Authority, Disability Access Officer and Fire Prevention Officer comment on matters appertaining to servicing the development and Building Control matters and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance. 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. The occupants of Wattlee and Oldbrook should be afforded party status as they are sufficiently close to the property to be directly affected by the property. ### Recommendation Decision Recommended by the Director of Planning and Building Control: Permitted #### Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal - : Notes attached to refusals C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice. C 2. This permission relates to the erection of two dwellings together with associated parking and access all as shown in drawings reference K098/P/10-01, -10-02, -10-03, -10-04, -10-05 and -11-01 all received on 8th November, 2006 and K098/P/10-02A received on 15th January, 2007. C 3. There must be no discharge of surface water to the main foul sewer. C 4. The proposed development must be connected to the main foul sewer. NOTE: A Drainage Connection Fee will be payable to the Drainage Authority on this development C 5. The roof(s) must be finished in natural slate or a high quality imitation slate which must be approved by the Planning Authority PRIOR to the commencement of works. C 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no extensions, greenhouses, walls, gates, fences, garden sheds, summerhouses, flag poles, decking, garages, or tanks for the storage of oil for domestic heating shall be erected (other than those expressly authorised by this approval.) adequate planting along the site boundaries; the approved scheme must be implemented during the first planting season following the commencement of the proposed use. C 4. Within one month of the date of this notice, all cars must be removed from the site and the access from the garage site must be blocked up. ### Party Status Interested party status was considered by the Committee and agreed as those recommended. The reporting officer explained the background to the proposal and the nature and zoning of the land. The Committee sought clarification of the precise use: were the cars associated with the garage/filling-station, or were they associated with the car-sales business in the village? A decision was deferred pending further investigation by Mr Balmer. ### Decision The Committee agreed to defer the application pending receipt of the information. In Miss Corlett’s absence, Mr Sinden reported to the Committee, explaining the planning history of the site in terms of use and density, and making specific reference to the appeal decision in respect of a proposal for 3 dwellings. The key issues were identified as visual impact (of the buildings themselves, and in the street scene), highway matters, drainage, and ecology. Having noted that the Highway and Drainage Authorities were content, that ecological matters had been satisfactorily addressed, and that land ownership was not a material consideration, the Committee nevertheless expressed concern about the design of the buildings, their cramped position on the site, and the failure to take the opportunity to respond to the character and interest of nearby buildings such as the former Rechabite Hall and Cubbon’s Cottages. The Committee concluded that the recommendation to grant approval should be rejected and that the application should be refused for the reasons set out below. The Committee rejected the recommendation of the case officer and the application was refused for the following reasons. C 1. By reason of their size, siting and the limited space between them the proposed dwellings would result in a cramped appearance which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the locality. [Table omitted in markdown export] C 2. The similar elevation details of the two detached dwellings would detract from and be detrimental to the appearance of the area which is characterised by a mix of house styles. ### Party Status Interested party status was considered by the Committee and agreed as those recommended. Mr Balmer explained the planning history, whereby the agricultural need and, in a general sense, the siting had been previously agreed. The Committee accepted that, subject to the use of neutral-coloured dash, the proposed building would be satisfactory, and, accordingly, granted approval as recommended, subject to the addition of an appropriate condition relating to the finish. ### Decision The Committee accepted the recommendation of the case officer and the application was approved subject to the following conditions. C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice. C 2. This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings 257-01 and 02199/1 all received on 15th December 2006. C 3. Two off street parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the proposed dwelling. NB. The proposed garage door is very narrow and it will not be easy to manoeuvre a car in and out of the garage. C 4. This permission may be taken up only by Mr Stewart Christian. C 5. The occupation of the proposed dwelling must be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employed in agriculture in the Island and including also the dependants of such persons as aforesaid. C 6. Prior to any works on the proposed dwelling, there must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority detailed drawings, showing a suitable scheme for adequate planting along the site boundaries; the approved scheme must be implemented during the first planting season following the commencement of the development. C 7. The external render must be finished with a dash finish, a sample of which must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department prior to any works to the proposed dwelling commencing. NOTE For single connections to a water main (i.e. a single dwelling) the applicant should contact IoMWA Customer Services, tel. 69 59 49 NOTE The Chief Fire Officer recommends the installation of mains wired interconnected domestic smoke detection. [Table omitted in markdown export] --- *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/81975-arbory-level-garage-dwelling/documents/1484463*