Planning Officer Report Version 2

Planning Officer Report And Recommendations {{table:19063}}

Officer's Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THREE NEIGHBOURING RESIDENTS WHO ARE RECOMMENDED TO HAVE PARTY STATUS

The Application Site

1. The application site is the residential curtilage of 6 Coronation Court, a two storey detached dwelling sited on the north eastern side of Coronation Court, Ramsey. Coronation Court is located south east of Windsor road which adjoins Bowring Road to the south west.

1. The existing dwelling is finished in cement painted render and comprises a traditional pitch roof with a dormer extension installed on the north western roof pitch elevation. To the north west of the existing dwelling is an integrated garage which opens up out onto the existing driveway leading onto the highway.

1. The property has a large garden to the side and front of the dwelling. Currently there is no front boundary treatment, so the garden is open to Coronation Court. The remainder of the street is characterised by front boundary hedges and in one instance a small picket fence.

1. The north east/east side boundary between the house and residential properties to the rear comprises a wall, fencing and some shrubbery that provides substantial screening to 'Rose Cottage' and 'Holly Cottage' of Cowells Terrace. The north west boundary is comprised of trees and hedging between the application site and Bretnagh.

The Proposal

1. This part retrospective planning application seeks the approval for the erection of decking and shelter in the rear garden and fencing in the front garden.

1. Most of the decking is already in place and measures 3.6 metres at its longest length and 5.2 metres at its longest width and has been erected in the northern quadrant of the existing garden and is built adjoining the existing boundary of neighbouring property 'Bretnagh' and 'Rose Cottage' and partially 'Holly Cottage'. The decking is erected 1 metre above ground level and is finished in timber with green/brown preservative. To the rear and side of the decking is to be a timber bamboo screen measuring 1.8 metres high completing the length at the rear of the decking and side elevation of the decking area to Cowells

Terrace. A fixed sheltered bench is proposed on the decking with the shelter comprising a solid timber back and felted roof. The shelter is to measure 1.2 x 1.8 metres.

1. The planning application also seeks approval for new boundary treatment to the front of the dwelling. This would consist of the re-building of a short length of wall at 1.35m where the property is directly adjacent to Windyridge. The remainder of the front boundary treatment would be a picket fence 1.35m high at the back edge of the pavement. No fence is proposed where the existing driveway is. In addition to the proposed boundary treatment, other fences are proposed, one to the side of the driveway and two others that divide the garden into sections. All of the fences are to be 1.35 metres high and be finished in green/brown preservative.

Planning History

1. The application site has been the subject of one previous planning application in 1999 that is not considered specifically material to the assessment of this planning application.

Planning Policy

1. In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as predominantly residential use under the Ramsey Local Plan Order 1998. Map No. 2 (south). There are no policies within the written statement that accompanies the Local considered specifically material to the assessment of this planning application.

1. In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains one policy that is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:

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."

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."

Representations

1. The Highways Division have no objections to the current planning application.

1. The Owner/Occupier of 'Bretnagh', Windsor Road objects to the current planning application on the following grounds:

1) The area of raised decking would allow the applicant and users of the decking to see over the boundary. 2) The provision of a shelter would affect the view from 'Bretnagh' and reduce the amount of light to the rear garden and rear rooms of 'Bretnagh'. 3) The applicant has apparently changed the use of the rear garden into a small holding by keeping chickens which appear to be housed in a greenhouse.

1. The Owner/Occupier of 'Holly Cottage', Cowells Terrace objects to the current planning application on the following grounds:

1) The existing structure is of considerable size and is unsuited to the close proximity of other gardens. It is not of residential design proportions, it is a vast piece of engineered platforming placed within an established residential garden setting. 2) Preparation for building works have included the stripping away and removal of small shrubs and a significant amount of mature hedging and undergrowth which have hitherto contributed to the stability and root protection of boundary features such as mature hedging and walls to all three adjoining properties. No retention measures have been put in place. 3) The effects of weather erosion on existing mature boundary features are compounded by the fall away in ground levels being approximately 2 metres. 4) The timber and bamboo screen that is to measure 1.8 metres along the hedge would rob the hedging and trees of light and water needed to maintain their previously healthy condition. 5) This constructed building is not in sympathy with either its own garden setting or that of its surrounding neighbours. 6) The large shelter invites vermin. 7) The building work has been constructed to share the same floor level and adjoins the rear boundary garden of Holly Cottage and as such recent noise levels are intrusive. 8) The proposed roof over the seating area will be higher than the existing wall and exclude light and the mountain views from Holly Cottage. Loss of existing views from this property's rear garden would have a significant negative impact upon its current valuation and market saleability.

1. The Owner/Occupier of 'Rose Cottage', Cowells Terrace objects to the current planning application on the following grounds:

1) If the building goes ahead, the appellants' views to the hills will be deteriorated by a third. 2) The structure being raised up to Rose Cottage level will result in loss of privacy. 3) The structure is directly in front of our kitchen window views to the hills and countryside would be lost if the structure were to go ahead.

Assessment

1. Given the nature of the planning application, there are a number of key issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application; 1) The impact of the development on the amenities of the local residents of Coronation Court, Cowells Terrace and Windsor Road; 2) The impact of the decking and shelter and fencing on the existing dwelling and; 3) The impact of the development on the surrounding area.

Residential Amenity

1. The decking structure is sufficiently distant from the residents who live in Coronation Court so as not to result in an undue loss of amenity. The decking would have more of an impact on the residents who live to the north and west (Rose Cottage, Holly Cottage and Bretnagh). Objections have been received on the basis of loss of privacy from the decking and loss of outlook from the proposed bamboo shelter.

1. Between 'Holly Cottage' and 'Rose Cottage' of Cowells Terrace and the application site is substantial screening and therefore the proposal is judged to have a minimal impact on the amenities of the residents of Cowells Terrace. The applicant proposes to erect further screening to the existing boundary which in turn would preserve private amenity. The proposed roof over the shelter measures 0.3 metres above the existing boundary wall which is judged a modest height increase. Given the existing height of the wall and trees, it is deemed that views would not be adversely affected given the angle and small length of the rear yards that views would be relatively steep angle anyway.

1. 'Windyridge' and 'Bretnagh' of Windsor Road directly back onto the application site to the north west/west. The boundary treatment between 'Bretnagh' and the application site comprises hedging and a belt of medium trees which would partially screen the shelter. The applicant proposes to erect a timber and bamboo screen boundary to increase levels of proposed amenity and prevent any further overlooking. The decking and shelter is therefore not judged to be an overbearing feature and would not encourage overlooking. The new screening would not be higher than the existing trees and it is therefore judged that there would not be an undue loss of light. In regards to 'Windyridge' the wooden fence boundary does not provide any substantial screening between either of the properties. However, the proposed decking and shelter would not be visible from 'Windyridge' unless they were to lean over the existing fence and directly peer at the decking and proposed shelter area. The proposed fencing to the front of the dwelling is considered to have a limited, if any, impact on the properties of Windsor Road given the siting and level and scale of development proposed.

Impact On Street Scene

1. The decking does not appear as an obtrusive feature given the size and proposed finish and distance from the street. It is therefore not judged to have a detrimental impact on the street scene of Coronation Court. Given the level of proposed fencing and existing vegetation the decking and proposed shelter will only partially be visible from a public thoroughfare and judged to have a minimal impact on the surrounding area.

1. The proposed fencing is judged to provide an improvement to the locality of Coronation Court. At present the application site is open to the highway and public and relies on a derelict wall and overgrown vegetation to act as a boundary. The installation of a fence boundary would improve the visual appearance of the cul-de-sac offering a tidier appearance.

Other Matters

1. The objectors raise a number of other concerns including a reduction in the value of their properties, the keeping of chickens, vermin and the stability of land following the removal of shrubs. These are not planning matters that can be taken into account in the determination of the planning application.

Recommendation

1. It is recommended that the planning application be permitted.

Party Status

1. The local authority is, Ramsey Town Commissioners, is by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5)(d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.

1. The Highways Division is part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is also part. As such, the Highways Division should not be afforded separate party status.

1. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status:

• The Owner/Occupier of 'Bretnagh', immediately adjacent to the application site.
• The Owner/Occupier of 'Holly Cottage', immediately adjacent to the application site.
• The Owner/Occupier of 'Rose Cottage', immediately adjacent to the application site.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation: 17.05.2012

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

C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2. This approval for the part retrospective planning application for the erection of decking and shelter in the rear garden and fencing in the front garden relates to drawing numbers LP1, SK1, SK2, SK3 and PH1 all date stamped 5th April 2012.

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