Inspector Report AP11/0132

Appeal by Mr & Mrs David Sutton against refusal for part conversion of garage and extension to rear elevation to provide additional living accommodation, 2 Northcroft, Off Malew Street, Castletown IM9 1LT

Inquiry held on Tuesday 24th January 2012 Site visit Monday 23rd January 2012

Preamble

1. I met Mr Sutton during the site visit and was able to see inside 2 Northcroft, but with no discussion on the merits of the proposals. This appeal is one of two by him and Mrs Sutton proposing ways to enlarge their home. I am submitting reports on each, the other having appeal reference AP11/0126 and planning reference 11/01137/B. The two are mutually compatible; Mr & Mrs Sutton indicated that if approved they may wish to implement both.

Site and Development

1. Their home is a modern detached house on three storeys, including the roof space, forming part of a group of two such houses, the earlier house, Northcroft, and an apartment block. Their house has a side gable facing west onto Malew Street. Its main front elevation faces south onto a small cul de sac that leads on past Northcroft to the apartments. The garage, attached on the eastern gable, faces the cul-de-sac behind a forecourt. This is some 6.2 m wide by a depth of some 4.7 m to the recessed (sliding up and over) garage door, about 4.5 m to short wall returns either side of the doors.

1. The garage has internal measurements of some 5.2 m wide by 5.7 m deep. It would be subdivided to provide a playroom and utility room at the rear, linked to the main house. The forward part would be retained for storage, reached by an internal door or via the garage door which would be retained. The playroom rear elevation would reuse French windows displaced by the proposed extension. This would be for a new kitchen, partly behind the main rear (north) elevation and partly projecting forward of the west gable. It would be single storey, some 4.7 m deep (north/south) by some 5.2 m wide (east/west) of which about 1.75 m would be in front of the Malew Street elevation.

Reason for Refusal

1. The loss of the garage for the parking of vehicles would leave inadequate space for the parking of two vehicles in a useable manner.

Gist of the Case for the Appellants

1. The house failed to sell for 18 months, so enlargement is proposed instead, creating a better balance between bedroom space and currently disproportionate living space. The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 (IoMSP) parking requirement is for two spaces. A minimum bay is usually 2.4 m by 4.8 m, which is met by the forecourt. It is ample for two cars without encroaching onto the cul-de-sac, with 5 further spaces available opposite. The garage has never been used for parking during the appellants’ 4½ years of occupation. It is used for storage and ‘white goods’ because the kitchen is too small. It can continue to be so used without planning permission and could provide a child’s playroom as it stands though obviously this would be unsatisfactory. Only the insertion of French windows brings the proposals within the ambit of planning control.

Gist of the Case for the Planning Authority

1. There is no objection to the kitchen extension but Highways Division oppose the garage conversion.

Gist of the Case for the Highway Authority

1. The house and garage were approved in 2003 (PA 02/708). Parking standards were those in the Castletown Local Plan which required 1.5 / dwelling. That approval, tabled at the inquiry, included condition 10: Before each dwelling is occupied the proposed vehicle parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with the submitted drawing to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority after consultation with the Highway Authority and shall thereafter be so retained. The drawing shows, for each house, one car parked in its double garage and another, depicted fainter, on the forecourt but possibly illustrating the route to or from the empty second space in the garages. The intention is not clear but it is believed that the forecourt was not treated as contributing to parking provision. In any event it is clear that the conversion sought conflicts with the condition.

1. Manx Roads: A Guide to the Design of Residential Roads, Footpaths, Parking and Services 1993 recommends a minimum car parking space of 3.25 m x 6.0 m within a residential curtilage. A minimum of 6.0 m is sought in front of a garage to permit access to both garage and vehicle. The guidance recommends that any forecourt in front of a garage should not be between 2 m and 5 m to prevent vehicles encroaching beyond the front boundary and causing an obstruction.

1. This forecourt is well below the recommended depth and likely, perhaps under future occupants, to risk vehicles projecting out, causing an obstruction for pedestrians or for drivers manoeuvring into or out of the parking spaces opposite. The appellants’ photograph of a Ford Fiesta illustrates that any larger car would be likely to cause such problems. A Fiesta is 3.95 m long compared with, say, a Focus at 4.34 m or a Mondeo at 4.8 m. Any tow bar would worsen the risk. The spaces opposite are part of overall provision for the development, including the apartments, and not intended to substitute for on-site provision at the house. The scheme would remove all parking complying with required standards, in conflict with IoMSP General Policy 2 (h).

Conclusions

1. No objection has been raised to the extension, including as regards its roof pitch – a key issue in Mr & Mrs Sutton’s other appeal. The extension would project forward of the elevation facing Malew Street, but there is no sensitive building line here and on this modern house, in its particular setting, I too can see no objection to the principle of an extension on this footprint. However, the new kitchen would be functionally complementary to accommodation created within the house and garage by the other elements of these proposals, and therefore not amenable to being determined separately by means of a split decision.

1. The issue with regard to the garage is whether it would leave the house with inadequate parking provision. It is not currently used for parking and evidently never has been since Mr & Mrs Sutton moved in. However their claim to more than 4.8 m depth does involve projecting a little forward (their tape measure photograph illustrates this) and presumes that both cars are aligned with the garage door rather than either wall return. Moreover, even 4.8 m is well below the Island standard which seeks 6.0 m in front of a domestic garage. The door in this case does not itself open forwards. But even so, access to a vehicle’s boot (or perhaps under its bonnet) requires parking away from the face of the door. The footway here aligns such that pedestrians walk past just outside the forecourt, where any projecting vehicle would be inconvenient at best and potentially hazardous particularly for anyone with visual impairment.

1. With careful parking and an appropriate choice of vehicles it is certainly possible to park two entirely within the forecourt, as Mr & Mrs Sutton evidently achieve in practice. However, circumstances including who lives there will change over time and there are clear objections, and conflict with General Policy 2 (h), to losing the option to park in the garage.

Recommendations

1. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed. The effect of this would be to uphold the decision of the Planning Committee.

1. In the event that the Minister reaches a different conclusion, I would see no additional issues arising were this development to be implemented in conjunction with that subject to appeal AP/11/0126 on which I am also reporting. I would recommend that any approval on these present proposals should be subject to the following conditions.

1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
2. This approval relates to part conversion of garage and extension to rear elevation to provide additional living accommodation as shown in the 1:1250 Location Plan, in addition to drawing numbers AT1117.1 and AT 1117.2, date stamped 12th August 2011.

Inquiry attendance

Mr and Mrs David Sutton Appellants Mrs J Craig Planning Officer Mr I Brooks Planning Officer Mr K Almond Highway Engineer