Officer Report 12/01434/B

Officer's Report

Application No.:	12/01434/B
Applicant:	Mr Lee Copeland
Proposal:	Erection of a detached garage and driveway extension
Site Address:	1 Snaefell View Jurby Isle Of Man IM7 3BF
Case Officer:	Miss Melissa McKnight
Photo Taken:	15.11.2012
Site Visit:	15.11.2012
Expected Decision Level:	Officer Delegation

The Application Site

1. The application site is the residential curtilage of No. 1 Snaefell View, a two storey semi detached dwelling sited on a corner plot on the eastern side of Snaefell View and northern side of the A14 Ballamenagh Road, Jurby. The application property adjoins No. 2 Snaefell View to the northeast.

1. The existing dwelling is finished in half brick work and half render and has a pitched roof finished in tiles with a central chimney stack at the junction with No. 2 Snaefell View. To the front of the dwelling is an open lawned area with an enclosed garden area to the rear bounded by timber fencing to the highway and adjoin property and gorse vegetation to the rear adjoining field.

1. The surrounding area is characterised residential properties of a similar design, form and appearance with a number of properties of The Threshold of a bungalow form.

The Proposal

1. The planning application seeks approval for the erection of a detached garage with an attic store over in the rear garden of No. 1 Snaefell View.

1. The proposed detached garage would measure 8 metres in length, 6 metres wide and have a maximum height of 5.1 metres.

1. The proposed detached garage is to have two roof lights installed on the south western roof pitch, each measuring metres. Also on the southern elevation would be a brown UPVC framed window, as there would be on the south east elevation, one brown PVC door and a garage door measuring metres. The proposed detached garage would be finished in all materials to match that of the main dwellinghouse.

Planning History

1. The application site has been the subject of three previous planning applications, one of which was granted planning approval and considered specifically material to the assessment of this planning application:

PA 95/01591/C: Change of use from residential accommodation to community resource centre, 1, Snaefell View, Jurby.

Planning Policy

1. In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential use under the 1982 Isle of Man Development Plan.

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."

Representations

1. Jurby Parish Commissioners have no objections to the proposal provided that the garage is used for the storage of motorcycles only, as there would not be sufficient width to create an access for a car by the side of the dwelling.

1. A representation has been received from the occupier/owner of No. 2 Snaefell View objecting to the planning application on the grounds of the size of the proposed development, use of the proposed garage, impacts of the proposed structure on the light available to their garden and dwelling of No. 2 Snaefell View and potential noise nuisance from working on motorbikes. The objector also states that the proposed building would be out of keeping with a small, quiet residential estate.

Assessment

1. Given the nature and level of development proposed it is imperative that the new proposed garage and driveway extension do not have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of the local residents of No. 2 Snaefell View and the amenity of the immediate locality.

1. The proposed garage would be erected 0.2 metres from the timber fence boundary of No. 2 Snaefell View and would protrude approximately 4.1 metres above the boundary. Although the eaves level is below the permitted development height of 2.9 metres by 0.35 metres, the height of the proposed detached garage is considered to be too high for the location of development with the proposed garage appearing as an overbearing and obtrusive feature. The existing boundary treatment is not of a substantial level to screen the proposed detached garage to a level that is considered acceptable. It is unfortunate the absence of significant boundary treatments and it is inevitable that anything substantially above the height of the fence boundary would appear as overbearing. It is therefore imperative to thoroughly find a balance between what height would be acceptable as to not impact upon residential amenity.

1. There has been a similar form of development in the rear garden of No. 4 Snaefell View, that measures, 5.2 x 6.4 metres. The height of the building has not been measured, but photographs show that the roof and approximately 1 metre of the building is visible above the timber fence boundary which does cause the building to appear slightly overbearing. It should be noted that there is additional planting present the partially screen the bulkiness of the existing building. In order to assist with the assessment of this current planning application it was felt necessary to look at the planning history of the building erected at No. 4 Snaefell View. Unfortunately, there was no planning application submitted for the building and therefore the building would not have been subject to a thorough assessment and planning procedure. In addition if this building was erected after 2007, then it would not have been subject to relevant planning policy. Historical photographs of the site detail that the building was erected before 2001 and would therefore not have been subject to relevant planning policy.

1. The proposed detached garage falls short of the permitted development length measurement of 6 metres by 2 metres. The overall footprint of the proposed detached garage, 6 x 8 metres, is almost similar to that of the main dwellinghouse which measures 5 x 9 metres. Given the proposed location of the proposed detached garage and the scale, size and proximity to the neighbouring property, it is considered that the proposed garage would have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity of No. 2 Snaefell View as well as the surrounding area.

1. The applicant's agent was contacted to discuss lowering the roof pitch from 42 degrees to 37 degrees which would in turn reduce the roof height by 0.5 metres and reduce the length of the proposed garage by 2 metres. This proposed amended garage appeared to be of a more acceptable scale and was considered acceptable and respected the surrounding area as well as having a lesser impact on No. 2 Snaefell View. However, the applicant did not wish to follow through with the suggestion from the Planning Authority and kept with the original drawing as per the application.

1. The proposed intended use is for a collection of bikes and parts and it is unlikely that this garage will be used for the parking of cars as the access and driveway are not of sufficient dimensions. Although the applicant indicates the proposed use of the building, it cannot be guaranteed in the future that the proposed detached garage would not become a separate living unit. The upper attic store from landing to ceiling is above the minimum habitable requirement of 2 metres and therefore the first floor of the garage could be well be used for separate living space. From one perspective the building is tantamount to a bungalow in a back garden. However, given that the applicant has stated that the new building will be used for the storage of motorcycles, the planning application cannot simply be refused for the sole reason that the building would look like and could be used as a detached single dwelling.

1. The new proposed driveway would extend from the existing to the garage and the area in front of the garage between the existing timber fence boundary. Whilst the proposed driveway would take up the majority of amenity space in the rear garden, the dwelling would still have a grassed are to the south western elevation of the proposed garage considered to be of a satisfactory amount to provide adequate amenity levels.

1. Although it is stated by Jurby Commissioners and also noted in the planning application that the driveway would not be of a sufficient width to be used by a car, the driveway actually has a width of approximately 3 metres which is considered more than sufficient to be used by a car.

1. A representation was received from the owner/occupier of No. 2 Snaefell View. One concern was raised with reference to loss of light gained into the garden and rooms of the main dwellinghouse. The proposed garage would be sited 12 metres south east of the main dwellinghouse which is considered a significant distance as to not impose loss of lights. With regards to the garden, the proposed garage would cause shadowing within No. 2 Snaefell View garden however, would not completely block out all instances of sunshine. With regards to the concern over the proposed out of keeping of the building, it is not unusual for dwellings to have detached garages and therefore the nature of the building is not considered out of keeping however is considered to be of a size that would appear overbearing.

Summary

1. Whilst one could argue that there are similar features within the locality, it does not warrant a reason for automatic approval for similar proposals. The rear building of No. 4 Snaefell View does have additional screening and is at a different orientation to that proposed for No. 1 Snaefell View. The additional screening does help minimise the impact of the building on No. 3 and No. 5 Sneafell View. In addition the gardens are much larger and therefore there is some leniency in what development could be proposed in terms of impact upon residential amenity.

1. There is scope for development within the rear garden of No. 1 Snaefell View however, the level and scale of development proposed warrants too many adverse impacts on the residential amenity of No. 2 Snaefell View and the form of the garage would appear as an overbearing and incongruous feature within the locality.

1. The proposed garage would be more acceptable if the length was reduced by 2 metres and the roof pitch by 0.5 metres. The permitted development measurements of metres reflect what is considered as acceptable dimensions for a detached garage.

1. Overall it is concluded that the planning application does not accord to the provisions of General Policy 2 or paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 by reason of its scale, size, form and design.

Recommendation

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

Party Status

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

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 13.12.2012

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

R 1.

The proposed detached garage is not deemed to respect the the site or surrounding area by reason of its scale, size, form and design and would appear as an overbearing and prominent structure, adversely impacting upon the residential amenity of No. 2 Snaefell View contrary to General Policy 2 (b, c, and g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.

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

Decision Made : Refused Date : 14-12-12

Determining officer (delete as appropriate)

Signed : _________________________ Signed: _________________________ Sara h Corlett

Senior Planning Officer Senior Planning Officer

Signed : _________________________ Signed: _________________________ Michael Gallagher Jennifer Chance

Director of Planning and Building Control Director of Planning and Building Control Development Control Manager