Officer Planning Report Recommendation

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:325193}} ### Considerations {{table:325189}} ### Written Representations {{table:325190}} ### Consultations {{table:325191}} {{table:325192}}

Officer's Report

The Site

1. The application site represents the residential curtilage of 1 Queens Court, Queens Road, Port St. Mary. The property is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling located on the north-eastern side of the road.

1. The dwelling has an unusual layout where the only external pedestrian door is located on the rear elevation. There is a vehicular door on the front elevation of the garage, but no other front access.

1. An objector to this application states that the dwelling currently forms a single property with the adjoining semi. This would explain the current absence of a front door, although there is no planning history for the actual conversion of the two properties into one.

The Proposal

1. Proposed is the erection of a porch extension on the front elevation. The proposed porch would be located slightly off-centre on the front elevation where there is an existing window. The existing window would be removed and a door would be formed in its place, giving access from the proposed porch into the lounge.

1. The porch would be single storey in height with a lean-to roof over. It would measure 2.1 metres wide by 1.5 metres deep. Due to the difference in ground level between the outside and the inside of the house, there would be 3 steps up, positioned alongside the porch.

Planning History

1. The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:

• 99/01708/B – Permitted 25/02/00

Erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings

• 03/00142/B – Permitted 11/07/03

Erection of garage to side of dwelling

• 04/01961/B – Permitted 24/11/04

Erection of a front porch

(This porch was erected to the front elevation of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling)

Development Plan Policies

1. The application site is located within an area designated as Predominantly Shopping Use on the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not located within a Conservation Area.

1. On the Modified Draft Area Plan for the South 2011 (Map no. 7), the site is located within an area designated as Predominantly Residential Use. The site is not located within the proposed Port St. Mary Conservation Area.

1. The relevant planning policy from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 is General Policy 2. Paragraph 8.12.1 for extensions to dwellings in built up residential areas is also appropriate.

1. 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 spaces 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 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;
• (l) 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."

1. Paragraph 8.12.1 states:

"As a general policy, in built up areas not controlled by Conservation Area or Registered Building policies, there will be a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general."

CONSULTATIONS

1. Port St. Mary Commissioners have no objections to the planning application.

1. The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not object to this application, as long as the building of the porch does not reduce the parking that is currently on the site.

REPRESENTATIONS

1. The owners of The Old Bakehouse, Queens Court, Queens Road, Port St. Mary object to this planning application. They state that the dwelling concerned is currently part of a larger dwelling, as it is linked with the semi-detached property to which it is attached. They feel that this planning application would be for the change of use from one dwelling to two dwellings and this would have implications for the entrance and courtyard which they share with these dwelling(s). They are concerned about parking, as there would be no parking space for the other semi-detached dwelling.

ASSESSMENT

1. The proposed porch would have an external floor plan of just over 3 square metres, so it is relatively small in size. Due to its size, design and location it is considered that there would be no adverse affects on neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light, loss of privacy or being overbearing.

1. It is felt that the proposed porch would give the property a definite frontage. The adjacent semi-detached dwelling has a more substantial porch to its front elevation (PA 04/01961/B), so there are no concerns that the proposed porch would upset the balance of the semi.

1. In terms of residential amenity for the residents of the dwelling itself, the proposed porch would improve access to the property. The site plan shows that a distance of over 5 metres would remain between the porch and the wall to the front of the site, so it is judged that vehicles would still be able to access the garage on the side of the dwelling in the same way as they do at present. The area in front of the dwelling is currently a hardstanding, but it is unlikely that the porch would take away any existing parking due to its small size and short distance out from the front elevation of the main house.

1. An objector is concerned that the dwelling is currently one half of a larger property, so the separation of this property into two would have implications on their shared courtyard. I have researched the planning history for the site and found that the two semi-detached dwellings were approved under PA 99/01708/B. There has been no subsequent application for the conversion of the two dwellings into one property, although in planning applications 03/00142/B (for a garage to no. 1) and 04/01961/B (for a front porch to no. 2), the red line around the site includes both dwellings. However, in planning application 05/92240/B (to convert the garage of the Old Bakehouse), the red line is shown around all three of the dwellings within the courtyard, so limited weight can therefore be attached to this.

1. Planning Permission would normally be required for the conversion of one dwelling into two. However, in the case of this current application, the properties are considered in planning terms to be two separate dwellings because they were approved as such and there is limited planning evidence for their use as a single dwelling.

1. The concerns of the objector about access and parking are noted. In terms of the access, this was deemed as acceptable for three dwellings when the properties were first constructed, so it is considered that the Planning Authority cannot have grounds for refusal because of this now. In terms of car parking, I have viewed the original plans for the erection of the two semi-detached dwellings (PA 99/01708/B) and the site plan showed six parking spaces, with three a short distance from the front of 1 Queens Court and three in front of 2 Queens Court, but further away at the opposite boundary of the courtyard. From also looking at the planning application for the conversion of the Old Bakehouse into a dwelling (PA 98/00788/B), I realise that these spaces would have been shared between all three of the dwellings, although there were also two spaces within a double integral garage of the Old Bakehouse.

1. Alterations to the Old Bakehouse have resulted in the loss of the two parking spaces within the integral garages and some of the parking in the courtyard. I could only find planning histories for the installation of windows where the garage doors previously were, but not for the erection of the glasshouse which is built in front of the property on part of the original parking spaces. In planning application 05/92240/B for the removal of the last of the garage doors, the development was considered to be acceptable as six parking spaces were required by the Highways Division and the application form stated that there was parking for 7 or 8 cars. With the exception of this current planning application, there have been no further proposals for any of the dwellings within the courtyard since that time.

1. As part of the assessment of this current application, I have consulted with officers of the Highways Division. They have stated that as long as the proposal does not result in the loss of any parking, they do not object. Having viewed the plans, I therefore consider the proposal to be acceptable. Although the proposed porch would project out from the front of the house, a standard parking space is taken to be 2.4 by 4.8 metres, so the proposal would leave space for one car in the garage and at least two cars side-by-side in front of the house.

1. It is judged that although some of the parking within the courtyard has been lost in the past due to changes to the Old Bakehouse, as this current development would not reduce the existing parking spaces, there are not sufficient grounds for refusal.

Recommendation

1. For the above reasons, this proposal is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval.

Party Status

1. It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, should be afforded interested party status:

• Port St. Mary Commissioners.
• The owner of the Old Bakehouse, Queens Court, Queens Road, Port St. Mary.

1. It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, should not be afforded interested party status:

• The Department of Transport Highways Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation: 26.09.2011

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 approval relates to the erection of a porch to front elevation of dwelling, as shown in drawing number 45.1.11, date stamped 22 August 2011.

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager.

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 28/9/11

Signed : Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Delete as appropriate

Signed : Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager