Loading document...
Application No.: 10/00232/B Applicant: Mrs Caroline Cornish Proposal: Partial conversion and first floor extension to existing detached garage to provide ancillary living accommodation Site Address: 39 Vicarage Park, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 2QE ### Considerations Case Officer: Mr Gary Barr Photo Taken: 29.03.2010 Site Visit: 29.03.2010 Expected Decision Level: Senior Planning Officer ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consultee: Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose Consultee: Douglas Corporation Notes:**
The application site represents the residential curtilage of 39 Vicarage Park which is an existing detached dwelling situated at the western side of the cul-de-sac of Vicarage Park which leads off Vicarage Road in Douglas. The property sits in a relatively large plot and comprises a pitched roof dormer bungalow dwelling with separate double garage.
The proposed planning application is seeking approval for the removal of the existing roof of the garage and for the height to be increased by 1430mm to create additional living accommodation. The internal alterations would form a bedroom, lounge and bathroom on the first floor and an entrance hall on the ground floor. One of the garages doors would be removed and a door installed. There would be two dormer windows erected (one of the eastern elevation and one on the western elevation). The alterations would have matching materials throughout.
The application site is within an area of "Residential Use" under the Douglas South Local Plan, which was adopted by Tynwald in 1998. The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains three policies which are 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:
12 April 2010 10/00232/B Page 1 of 4
Strategic Policy 5 is also considered relevant and states: "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies".
Environment Policy 42 is also relevant and states: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans".
The following previous planning application should be considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:
PA 03/01649/B - Extension to rear elevation and erection of a replacement garage - Permitted
The Douglas Corporation has not commented on the proposed development. The Department of Transport Highways Division do not oppose - has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications.
It is acknowledged that the first floor development is relatively small in nature, with it comprising 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom and lounge; however, with it being two stories, there is sufficient space to expand the annexe to create a kitchen at a later date (if the applicant wishes without the need for planning permission) which would in-turn be equivalent to the creation of a new self contained residential unit, which can be accessed completely independently of the main property. Irrespective of the intentions of the applicant, it needs to be remembered that planning permission runs with the land and the building would remain after the current owners cease to have an interest in the
property. The long term use of the building must be a consideration in the determination of the application.
The use of the accommodation by either a member of the family or relative of 39 Vicarage Park does not in itself render it ancillary to that property. There would be no material difference in nature between an unrelated family member using the property and relatives using it. Consequently the same criterion is used to assess an application for a new property, should be used to assess this application.
In terms of the impact on neighbouring properties, the proposal has been designed so that there is only an obscure window which would overlook the neighbouring property of 40 Vicarage Park. All remaining habitable windows are designed to face towards the driveway and the rear yard of the application site. Given its distance to the neighbouring dwellings and due to the height of the boundary treatment, overlooking would be difficult and it is not considered that the proposal would give rise to loss of privacy.
The building would be 5400 mm in height ( 1500 mm greater than the existing); be positioned 1200 mm off the southern boundary of the application site and project over the boundary treatment along the southern periphery of the site. In most instances this would result in unacceptable loss of light, however, the proposed development would be sited to the north of the neighbouring property of 40 Vicarage Park. Consequently, the proposed development would not affect the level of sunlight currently enjoyed by the neighbouring property to an unacceptable degree. It is acknowledged that the high tree line on the southern boundary of the site would screen the majority of the development from 40 Vicarage Park. However, with the increase in ground level from the dwelling to the garage, together with increased height of the development, this results in a relatively tall structure quite close to the boundary of the neighbouring property. This would create an overbearing impact even though there is reasonable boundary treatment.
In terms of impact on the locality, it is judged that the design would not be sympathetic to the character of the area. The erection of a dormer (flush with the front elevation) and a rooflight on the front elevation, together with a domestic door, would result in the proposal appearing disproportionate and rather similar to a small dwellinghouse, which is considered to be out of place and unacceptable in this instance. Even though the annexe would be set back from the street by approximately 25 m and not overly visible from the public thoroughfare; the proposal fails to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. It also does not respect the site upon which it sits, or its surroundings in terms of its design, siting, and scale.
However, the impact should not just be considered in visual terms. The impact of the use of the property in terms of additional impact and long term viability of the host dwelling to be a family home should also be considered. In this context, the erection of the annexe would be likely to undermine the attractiveness of the host dwelling as a family home. It may be the applicants intention for the application to be conditioned, or to enter into a legal agreement to tie the two residential units together, however, their intentions are not in question, but as stated earlier, the planning permission runs with the land. It is not considered that such restrictions are appropriate or enforceable, nor is it considered that such conditions would render the application acceptable.
The main concern with the proposal is the over-intensive use of the plot and it could be argued that this is backland development. It is acknowledged that the proposed garage / living accommodation fits comfortably within the relatively large plot; however, it is considered that it is too small to serve two detached residential units. The positioning of the garage / living accommodation (at the southern boundary) leaves inadequate private amenity space and results in an unacceptable relationship between the units. It would also undermine the quality of the outlook from the host dwelling and possibly the neighbouring property of 40 Vicarage Park. Furthermore, the proposed unit has no street frontage of its own and is served purely through the private driveway. As such it, undermines the attractiveness of the space between dwellings and does not provide satisfactory amenity standards in itself.
For these reasons the proposal is considered unacceptable and it is recommended that the planning application be refused.
It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded Interested Party Status:
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 30.03.2010
The proposal to create ancillary living accommodation would be tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling. The proposed use would result in an increased level of activity to the detriment of neighbouring occupiers. Furthermore, the relationship between the existing dwelling and the new unit would not provide satisfactory standards of amenity and privacy for the occupants of either unit. The proposal therefore fails to meet Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, 2007.
It is considered that the proposal fails to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island; it does not respect the site upon which it sits, or its surroundings in terms of its design, siting, and scale. It undermines the attractiveness of the space between residential units. As such the proposal fails to meet Strategic Policy 5 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, 2007.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Senior Planning Officer. Decision Made: Refused Date: 12 April 2010 Signed: *_**_**_**_*__ Senior Planning Officer
12 April 2010
10/00232/B
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown