Erection of a garage extension with living accommodation over Plot 21
Site Address:
Poachers Pocket Development Bridge Road Ballasalla Isle Of Man
Officer's Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAVE RECOMMENDED REFUSAL AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
The Site
The site is an approved plot within the developing Poacher's Pocket estate which lies between Bridge Road, the Silverburn river and the Silverburn residential estate. The plot lies on the northern side of the approved layout and faces north west and has approved dwellings to the north east which faces north east. The property to the south west faces the same direction as the approved application property.
The approved dwelling is a dormer bungalow with a central projecting one and a half storey gable whose lower section is finished in stone and the higher section in timber boarding. The dwelling is 4m from the estate road, at closest and there is 4.3m to the south west of the dwelling for car parking with a driveway which is up to 12m long.
The Proposal
Proposed is the erection of a garage alongside the dwelling. This will be externally 3.5m by 6.5m, leaving 6m in front of the garage for parking. The garage will be 6.45m high to the ridge, slightly (100mm) below the level of the main ridge. Accommodation will be provided within the roof of the extension in the form of a bathroom. A rooflight is proposed in the rear pitch.
A distance of 2.6m will remain between the application property and the dwelling alongside and the new garage will be 1m from the boundary with number 22.
Planning Status And Policy.
The site lies within an area of Residential land use on both the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 and the draft Southern Area Plan. As such the provisions of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan are applicable as follows:
"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:
Case Officer:
Miss S E Corlett
Photo Taken:
26.11.2012
Site Visit:
26.11.2012
Expected Decision Level:
Planning Committee
b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space 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; 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 adverse 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."
Regard should also be had to the history of the site, and in particular PA 02/0712 which approved the layout of the site for 22 dwellings. The Inspector reporting on the layout of the estate clearly stated that "provided that the height of the dwellings was not excessive and did still retain the appearance of single storey structure as well as there being no overlooking of existing dwellings", he saw no harm in amenity or visual terms. He goes on to state "I can see little wrong with the principle of including dormer windows providing they do not face existing dwellings or cause the height of the new buildings to become excessive" and recommended a condition which reads "The proposed dwellings shall generally be of a single storey height. Any dormer windows constructed shall not be in those elevations facing existing dwellings around the site in a manner that would cause overlooking and loss of privacy or result in the height of the new dwellings to become excessive".
A material consideration in assessing whether the proposal accords with GP2, is the approved application, PA 05/92162 which effectively established the height and proximity to the boundary of an acceptable dwelling on this plot.
Also of relevance are the findings of the inspector in respect of PA 10/01358 (see below).
Planning History
Planning permission was granted for the layout of the plots, roads and services for 22 dwellings under PA 02/00712. Since then individual applications were submitted for the plots, in some cases with multiple proposals. In the case of plot 18, permission was granted under PA 05/92162 for a dwelling as described in paragraph 2. Permission was subsequently sought for the development of different house types on plots 12, 13, 15 - 22 under PA 10/01358. This was refused at appeal for reasons relating to a "hotch potch" of building finishes and heights and the inclusion of two storey gables which were considered to be dominant in the streetscene. The dwelling shown on plot 18 was 0.6m taller than the dwelling which had approval.
Permission was then sought for a redesign of the dwellings on plots 17 - 22 inclusive (PA 11/01074). Following concerns raised by the local authority, plots 18 and 21 were removed from the approval and the applicant indicated that they would proceed with the approval already granted in respect of these plots. The dwelling shown on plot 18 in that application would have been broadly similar to what is now proposed but 0.5m less long and the driveway was slightly shorter.
Representations
Malew Parish Commissioners recommend that the development would be over intensive use of the site and recommend refusal.
Highways Division recommend that the proposal meets their standards.
Assessment
Despite the fact that the dwelling now proposed is broadly the same as was proposed but withdrawn in PA 11/01074, this was not refused by the Planning Authority, merely withdrawn by the applicant. The scheme is lower than that which had approval originally and has better access and parking provision and is set back slightly further from the road. There is to be a mixture of finish materials, which perhaps was criticised by the previous inspector, however, the same inspector criticised the "density of building and the mediocre design of the development under construction will be such that open or undeveloped space will be important to provide visual relief from the tightly-packed, characterless bungalow sorbubia currently being built." (his paragraph 16, PA 08/01617).
Whilst a concern about a "terracing effect" is valid, in this case the garage will be set back from the main frontage by a metre, this introducing a step in the frontage which, it is considered will obviate the terracing effect and any impact of over-development of the site. Views into the site are available from Bridge Road alongside the entrance, from where an angled view of this plot is available and from where the garage will be set back behind the main frontage of the dwelling in question. From the open space on the other side of the river, the dwelling will be visible at less of an angle, but bearing in mind the impact of the rest of the estate, which is also visible, it is not considered that the additional garage will have so significant an impact as to warrant refusal of the application.
In summary, the developer has a difficult task in trying to introduce interest into an estate which has a predetermined plot layout and where the original approval involved very similar properties which could well have resulted in the lack of character referred to by the previous inspector. The present array of designs introduce variety but not, it is considered a "hotch potch" of styles and finishes and where the proposed garage is not considered unacceptable.
The driveway is 6m long and wide enough for a single vehicle. As this will accommodate only a single vehicle, it is important if planning permission is granted for this development, that the provision within the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 regarding the use of the garage as living accommodation and its conversion thereto by removing the garage door, is suspended. Bearing in mind the limited space around the property it is also important that the provisions for expansion of the dwelling are restricted and the provisions of most of the Order should be suspended. The Order was suspended in the approvals granted for the other dwellings on the estate.
Party Status
The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.
The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic 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 03.12.2012
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 a garage as shown in drawing 0210/PL1021 received on 31st August, 2012.
C 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012, the garage may be used only for the storage of motor vehicles in association with the occupation of the main dwelling and may not be used as ancillary accommodation nor converted thereto without planning permission.
NOTE: the provisions of the PDO enable this to occur where there is provision for two vehicles to be parked within the curtilage of the dwelling, each space being at least 6m by 3.25m. This is not available within the development as shown.
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
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
