Loading document...
Application No.: 16/01053/VAR Applicant: Mr & Mrs Stuart Blackley Proposal: Variation of condition 3 of 10/01001/B Site Address: Fo-Glion Glen Rushen Road Glen Maye Isle Of Man IM5 3BA Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 06.10.2016 Site Visit: 06.10.2016 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling, Fo Glion ("below the glen" in Manx Gaelic) which lies on the south western side of the Glen Rushen Road which leads south east from Glen Maye to Glen Rushen. The road is a single vehicle width public carriageway up until a little way further south east than the application site whereupon the road becomes a public footpath (part of the Bayr ny Skeddan long distance way). The dwelling is striking due to its steeply pitched roof and can be seen both from the main part of the village and from the Glen Rushen Road. There is also a garage to the north west of the house which is less tall and less prominent although visible from both locations. - 1.2 The applicant owns additional land to the north west of the application site which is outwith the residential curtilage and is shown in blue on the submitted plans. - 1.3 Alongside the garage building there is a lay by off the Glen Rushen Road where it is possible to park a vehicle fully off the highway. This land is within the curtilage of the property as defined in the application. - 1.4 The premises are accessed from within the curtilage of the main house as well as directly from the Glen Rushen Road via a set of stone steps leading up from the level of Fo Glion and a pedestrian timber bridge leading onto Glen Rushen Road from the level of the upper floor of the garage. The inside of the upper floor is a single room with a bathroom separated by a stud wall and doorway. The main area of space accommodates a bed, living area and small kitchenette which accommodates kitchen units and drawers, a sink, fridge and microwave. There is no cooker or extraction system. The overall floor area amounts to 30 sq m. There is a small balcony at the south western end giving a very pleasant view out over Glen Maye. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The application proposes the modification of a condition which was imposed upon the erection of the garage and which limited the use of the upper part of the building to domestic storage and/or as a home office. For the avoidance of doubt, it was clarified in the condition that the first floor must not be used as self-contained living accommodation. - 2.2 The applicant wishes to be able to use the upper floor area for visiting family and friends (they have 6 children between them, 5 grandchildren and 3 elderly parents. They explain that there are
3.1 The site lies within an area designated on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as not for any particular purpose and of high landscape value and scenic significance. The residential designation relating to the village is tightly defined, finishing at the north western end of the area of land owned by the applicant, but over 100m to the north west. There are a number of existing dwellings outwith this and other areas of residential land use on the plan, including the application property and four properties to the south east - Lhergy Veg, Watts Cottage, Deep Water and Sunridge. PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 The garage was approved under PA 10/01001/B which saw the conversion of the existing integral garage to additional living accommodation and the erection of a new garage alongside which is the subject of the current application. This contained the condition referred to in paragraph 2.1 above.
4.2 An application was refused for the additional use of the office space above the garage tor tourist accommodation under PA 12/00619/C. The reason for this was as follows:
"The additional use of the upper floor as a self-contained residential unit of this size would be tantamount to the creation of an additional dwelling in the countryside, contrary to established planning policies aimed at protecting the Manx countryside and directing new residential development to locations that accord with sustainable development principles. For these reasons the proposal would be contrary to Spatial Policy 4, General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1 & 2 and Housing Policy 4 & 11 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan".
4.3 This was appealed by the applicant and the inspector, who recommended refusal of the application, was of the view that to refuse the application because it was tantamount to a new dwelling was not an acceptable reason for refusal as the application did not propose that and in order to achieve this a further application would be required. He notes that that application proposed no extensions or external alterations are proposed. He noted that a pedestrian bridge had been built without approval but did not form part of the scheme and would be the subject of separate resolution. - 4.4 His concerns were around the alleged redundancy of the accommodation and concluded that there was no evidence to suggest how the office and domestic storage purposes for which the space was intended would be accommodated elsewhere and this could lead to further applications for extensions or building to provide this space. - 4.5 He expresses concern that if the original approval were granted without any evidence of need for the accommodation then this could encourage other applicants to submit applications for such buildings in the countryside, contrary to the Strategic Plan policies which protect the countryside.
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Highway Services indicate that they have no highway interest in the application (03.10.16).
5.2 Patrick Parish Commissioners request a deferral (29.09.16). They later note the previous refusal but resolve to comment no further (11.10.16).
6.2 The unit could clearly be used separately from the dwelling as there is separate pedestrian access onto the Glen Rushen Road and a parking space available there and the space available is large enough for tourist or permanent accommodation. The fact would remain that the accommodation would be directly above someone else's garage were the accommodation to be separated is a material fact and one which would lead to the separate occupation being unlikely. It could be that the accommodation could, however be satisfactorily occupied separately but retained in the ownership of the applicant without significant issue in practical terms, leading to the situation which was considered unacceptable in planning terms under the 12/00619/C application. Whilst that is not what is proposed here, it narrows the gap in terms of impact between a tourist or separate unit, and the present situation, perhaps making it more difficult to resist in the future. However, an application cannot be refused because of a potential future use whose implementation is itself subject to planning control.
6.2 Had the condition not been attached to the original permission for the garage, for the upper floor not to be used as living accommodation, then it is likely that the space could have been used as is now proposed, as space ancillary to that of the main house - for friends, family etc who would also utilise the main house and fraternise with the occupants thereof, without the need for a further approval as it could have been considered incidental to the use of the whole site as the curtilage of a dwelling. However, it was conditioned as such. - 6.3 If the accommodation is used by persons who would otherwise be within the main house, then it is unlikely that there would be any impact in terms of traffic or increase in activity, not that there has been any objection on either ground from the local authority, neighbours or the highway authority. - 6.4 The provision of a separate access out onto the Glen Rushen Road complicates things slightly as it gives the impression of the accommodation being severable but as it provides a useful means of escape should there be an incident within the site which blocks the single means of access to the site, which is narrow and with limited manoeuvring space at the entrance. As such, it is unwise to seek to have this deleted. - 6.5 The incidence of garages being built with storage or other space above then becoming the subject of applications for the creation of additional or separate living or tourist accommodation are becoming commonplace. The Planning Committee has recently indicated that the use of the upper floor of garages or outbuildings can be acceptably used as tourist accommodation, despite the relatively recent appeal decision suggesting that it may not be. Close Vark Farm in Andreas was subject to such an application and was recommended for refusal but approved by the Committee (PA 16/00038/C). - 6.6 The key to controlling and restricting the use of the upper floors of such properties perhaps is not allowing the building to have sufficient upper floor space as would allow tourist or permanent occupancy, through the limitation of eaves heights and overall ground floor dimensions. However, many applicants require buildings of such a footprint as will generate this amount of space and may also have a genuine need or desire for ancillary living space for elderly parents/-in-law - PA 16/00367/B at Oakhill in Port Soderick. What happens when the need for this accommodation for such family members no longer exists is another matter. - 6.7 The situation in this case is that there is an existing building with sufficient space above and partly within the roofspace to provide living accommodation. Whilst that space was originally
7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 26.10.2016 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: the separate occupation of the accommodation would be a new dwelling in an area not designated for development and contrary to the Strategic Plan policies which protect the countryside.
Reason: the separate occupation of the accommodation would be a new dwelling in an area not designated for development and contrary to the Strategic Plan policies which protect the countryside.
This decision relates to drawing 10 0654 01 received on 8th July, 2016.
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: 14.11.2016
Signed : S Corlett 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
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown